[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 118 (Thursday, August 5, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6886-S6905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 3711. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to direct the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish, promote, and
support a comprehensive prevention, education, research, and medical
management referral program for viral hepatitis infection that will
lead to a marked reduction in the disease burden associated with
chronic viral hepatitis and liver cancer; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a silent killer is loose in America. It
contributes to the deaths of 15,000 and threatens the health of 5.3
million Americans each year. It is more common than HIV/AIDS. It is the
leading cause of liver cancer, which is on the rise and continues to be
a fatal and costly disease. Yet it remains unrecognized as a serious
threat to public health. This silent killer is viral hepatitis.
That is why I am introducing the Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer
Control and Prevention Act of 2010, which authorizes $600 million to
develop a national strategy over the next five years to prevent and
control Hepatitis B and C.
Most people don't even know they have it until years later when it
causes cancer or liver disease. We can help avoid such needless
tragedies with prevention and surveillance programs and by educating
Americans on the pervasive nature of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C.
In January, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, released a report
entitled ``Hepatitis and Liver Cancer.'' The report concludes that the
current approach toward treating hepatitis is not working. Too many
Americans at-risk for hepatitis or living with it do not know it and
too many health providers are not screening for it. That should come as
no surprise because there is no Federal funding of core public health
services for viral hepatitis. Also, there is no federally funded
chronic Hepatitis B and C surveillance system.
The IOM report calls for a national strategy to prevent and control
Hepatitis B and C.
Hepatitis B is 100 times more infectious than HIV and, left
untreated, can cause liver disease, liver cancer and premature death
decades after infection. About 2 billion people worldwide have been
infected with Hepatitis B and about 170 million people are chronically
infected with Hepatitis C. Tragically, \2/3\ of those infected, on
average, are unaware of their status, which increases the chance of
spreading the disease.
Dr. Howard Koh, Assistant Secretary of Health, has convened a task
force including representatives from all Department of Health and Human
Services agencies to develop an action plan to implement the
recommendations of the Institute of Medicine Report.
Unless action is taken to prevent chronic Hepatitis B and Hepatitis
C, thousands more Americans will die each year from liver cancer or
liver disease related to these preventable diseases.
The Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer Control and Prevention Act
directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a
national plan for the prevention, control and medical management of
viral hepatitis in coordination with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, CDC, the National Institutes for Health, the National
Cancer Institute, NCI, the Health Resources and Services
Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, SAMHSA, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The national plan is required to include the following components:
education and awareness programs; an expansion of current vaccination
programs; counseling regarding the ongoing risk factors associated with
viral hepatitis; support for medical evaluation and ongoing medical
management; increased support for adult viral hepatitis coordinators;
and the establishment of an epidemiological surveillance program to
identify trends in incidence and prevalence in the disease.
The Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer Control and Prevention Act of
2010 also
[[Page S6887]]
enhances SAMHSA's role in hepatitis activities by providing the agency
with the authority to develop educational materials and intervention
strategies to reduce the risks of hepatitis among substance abusers and
individuals with mental illness.
It authorizes nearly $600 million over the next five years to fund
the national strategy to prevent and control viral hepatitis.
I believe this investment in hepatitis control and prevention could
save our country billions of dollars in the coming years. The baby
boomer population is estimated to account for two out of every three
cases of chronic Hepatitis C. As these Americans age into Medicare they
are likely to develop complications and require expensive medical
interventions at great cost to taxpayers. In the next decade, the costs
of Hepatitis C to commercial insurance and Medicare will more than
double, and within 20 years Medicare costs will increase five-fold.
Projecting further out, over the next 20 years, total medical costs for
patients with Hepatitis C infection could increase more than 2.5
times--from $30 billion to more than $85 billion.
However, the costs for early detection and intervention are
dramatically less than the costs for treatment post-infection. The
costs for Hepatitis B vaccinations vary but range from $75 to $165,
whereas treatment can cost up to $16,000 per year. Screening for
Hepatitis C is also relatively inexpensive compared to treatment that
can cost up to $25,000 per year. Untreated, these infections will
develop into liver disease that can cost up to $110,000 per hospital
admission. We can do better.
Viral hepatitis is an increasingly significant issue for
Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health reports
over 2,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis B infection and
8,000 to 10,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis C infection
each year. Viral hepatitis infections are by far the highest volume of
reportable infectious diseases to the state. Additionally, there has
been and continues to be a striking increase of cases of Hepatitis C
infection among adolescents and young adults in the state. The
Department of Public Health has received reports on over 1,000 cases in
people under the age of 25 years every year since 2007, indicating that
there is a new epidemic of Hepatitis C disease.
Resources to address these complex problems have been extremely
limited. Federal resources are scarce with the average award per state
of $90,000 from the Division of Viral Hepatitis at CDC. That is less
than the cost of one hospital admission for liver disease.
The Massachusetts State Legislature has, until recently, provided
modest funding to support Hepatitis C initiatives in the state. At this
time, all of that funding, $1.4 million annually for the past several
years, has been eliminated due to the ongoing fiscal crisis. However,
past funding has allowed Massachusetts to develop innovative programs
in many areas.
State funds have supported disease surveillance initiatives so that
changes in the epidemics can be detected, such as the increase of cases
of Hepatitis C infection among young people or to identify cases of
viral hepatitis that are being transmitted through non-sterile
practices in health care settings. Disease surveillance programs have
been used to identify women of childbearing age that are infected with
Hepatitis B so that transmission to their babies can be prevented.
The Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer Control and Prevention Act of
2010 would provide critical assistance to Massachusetts and other
states by starting to provide appropriate levels of funding to address
these epidemics of disease.
In Massachusetts, funding would be used to expand disease
surveillance efforts so that we can better understand the impact of
these infections and direct services appropriately to highly impacted
communities. It would help to expand screening and educational services
to help identify the large numbers of people in the state living with
Hepatitis B and C that have not been identified. It would provide
support to address the complex prevention needs of adolescents and
young adults who are using drugs and at-risk for infection.
Increased funding for adult immunization would assist the State in
better targeting and providing Hepatitis B vaccine to the adults at
highest risk, including those that are incarcerated and being treated
for drug abuse. Finally, it would also help to provide essential
medical management for people already infected with Hepatitis B and C
who are not able to access appropriate care currently.
I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been
integral to the development of the Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer
Control and Prevention Act of 2010. I am pleased that 102 hepatitis
focused organizations from across the Nation have endorsed the
legislation, including the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable,
National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, NASTAD, the
Hepatitis B Foundation, the Hepatitis C Association, American
Association for the Study of Liver Disease, and the Hepatitis Education
Project.
We have no time to waste. This legislation, along with strategic
investments in public health and prevention programs, can save billions
of hard earned taxpayer dollars. It can improve the quality of life for
tens of thousands of people all over America. I urge my colleagues to
support activities that promote early detection and education and to
cosponsor this important legislation.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Roberts):
S. 3712. A bill to rescind the 3.8 percent tax on the investment
income of the American people and to promote job creation and small
businesses; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Economic Growth
and Jobs Protection Act of 2010. This legislation would repeal the 3.8
percent tax on investment income that was included in the Health Care
Reconciliation Act of 2010, P.L. 111-152, signed into law by the
President earlier this year. I am pleased that Senator Roberts and
Senator Crapo are cosponsors of this legislation.
We know that taxpayers already face the largest tax increase in
history when the 2001 and 2003 tax relief expire at the end of the
year. Unless Congress acts, in less than 150 days: the highest
individual tax bracket will rise from 35 percent to just under 40
percent; people in the lowest tax bracket will see a 50 percent tax
increase, from 10 percent to 15 percent; the marriage penalty will
increase; the child credit will be cut in half; and taxes on capital
gains and dividends will increase. In other words, every taxpayer will
pay higher taxes to Washington.
But while taxpayers may be concerned about the upcoming tax shock,
many may not be aware of another unpleasant surprise that will soon
follow. The Health Care Reconciliation Act that was jammed through the
Senate along partisan lines includes a $123 billion tax on the capital
gains, dividends, rents, and interest earned by certain taxpayers.
Enacting this permanent tax hike was a mistake then and is a mistake
now. It will discourage savings and investment; it will reduce
productivity and will depress wages and the standard of living for
millions of Americans. According to the Institute for Research on the
Economics of Taxation--a non-profit economic policy research and
educational organization, a 2.9 percent tax would depress economic
growth by 1.3 percent and reduce capital formation by 3.4 percent. The
damage on job and economic growth would be even greater from a 3.8
percent investment tax.
Simply put, increasing taxes on investment income is a job killer and
increases uncertainty at a time that the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve has told Congress that the economic outlook is ``unusually
uncertain.'' Taxpayers, including small businesses, are already
scheduled to get hit with the largest tax increase in history in less
than 160 days if Congress fails to act. In fact, the top tax rate on
capital gains will eventually be 23.8 percent as the rate bounces back
to 20 percent from 15 percent. And the top tax rate for dividends will
eventually rise to 43.4 percent.
Why do we want to pile on the backs of working families and job
creators with more taxes that do nothing to create jobs at a time that
the national unemployment rate remains 9.5 percent and where in some
States, such as Nevada, there is record unemployment? We know the key
to job creation is to
[[Page S6888]]
grow the economy and allow small businesses to flourish, invest and
create jobs.
In fact, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, we will
need several years of very strong growth to reach 5 percent
unemployment. For example, to reach 5 percent unemployment by the end
of 2013, the economy would need to average 5 percent per year. To reach
5 percent unemployment by 2015 would still take growth of 4.2 percent a
year. This is just one reason, that during the health care debate I
offered a motion that would have directed the Senate Finance Committee
to report the bill back without the 3.8 percent tax on the investment
income. Although my attempt to strip out this job-killing tax fell
short, I want to take this opportunity to note that 6 of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle supported my motion.
Not only will this legislation protect jobs and the investment
security of taxpayers, it will also make sure that Congress restores
one of the President's campaign promises. On September 12, 2008, then-
candidate Obama promised the American people that, ``Everyone in
America--everyone--will pay lower taxes than they would under the rates
Bill Clinton had in the 1990s.'' But when combined with the President's
budget proposal, this additional tax on investment will raise taxes on
many Americans higher than they were under the rates President Clinton
had in the 1990s.
I ask that my colleagues support this legislation that will repeal
this job-killing tax on small business investment, and thus will
protect economic growth, jobs, and the retirement savings of taxpayers.
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. 3712
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 ``Economic Growth and Jobs
Protection Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF UNEARNED INCOME MEDICARE CONTRIBUTION.
Section 1402 of the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152) and the
amendments made by such section are repealed.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 3713. A bill to improve post-employment restrictions on
representation of foreign entities by senior Government officers and
employees; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
that will tighten restrictions on individuals who move between the
public and private sector--the so-called revolving door. The
legislation that I am introducing today aims to better protect the
United States from conflicts of interest posed by this practice,
particularly where it comes to senior government officials and
employees going on to represent foreign entities--sometimes even the
governments of the very foreign countries in which they had just
finished representing the United States.
There was a time when public service was held in high esteem, but the
ever expanding revolving door between public and private employment has
generated cynicism and frustration. By placing meaningful restrictions
on how quickly former officials can access this door and where it will
take them, we can reverse the trend of government employees going off
to lobby for foreign entities by making clear they are not ``for
sale.'' This legislation is an important reminder that public service
should be treated as an honor and a privilege, and will help to ensure
that government officials make decisions based on the best interests of
the American people, and not on their future career prospects.
Foreign governments and businesses have come to rely on U.S.
lobbyists to advocate for their interests and interact with key policy
makers. According to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
earlier this year, data analyzed by watchdog groups found that ``[m]ore
than 340 foreign entities--from governments to separatist groups to
for-profit companies--spent at least $87 million on lobbying efforts in
the United States between July 2007 and December 2008.'' Former senior
government officials are in demand to represent or advise foreign
entities after leaving office. Even from the limited data available, it
appears at least four recent U.S. Ambassadors--the President's chief
representatives abroad--have done this kind of work in recent years. It
is not just ambassadors who go on to represent foreign entities, but
also deputy secretaries, under secretaries, other categories of
executive branch officials, and, of course, former members of Congress.
The bill I am introducing today will strengthen the post-employment
restrictions on foreign entity representation that are already in place
by both length and scope. It will cover those officials, including in
the legislative branch, that are already subject to revolving door
restrictions, but expand the current 1-year restriction on
representing, aiding or advising a foreign entity with intent to
influence to 5 years. It will also expand the definition of prohibited
entities to include foreign businesses as well as foreign governments
and political parties.
Revolving door restrictions are supposed to protect the U.S.
Government and the people it serves from conflicts of interest and from
Government officials appearing to cash in on their public service. They
help ensure that people representing the United States at the most
senior levels are not being influenced by the possibility of securing
lucrative jobs from outside entities while still in Government and they
help prevent inside knowledge and personal connections to colleagues
still in Government from being used on behalf of private parties. These
are clearly important and legitimate goals and the current 1-year
prohibition on foreign entity representation is insufficient to secure
them.
Critics of tightening these restrictions may argue that former
Government officials lobbying on behalf of foreign governments can
sometimes pursue very laudable aims for those governments, such as
securing resources for public health needs. This is surely true. But
for every such positive example envisioned, another can come to mind
that is notably less constructive, such as lobbying on behalf of
governments with reprehensible human rights records. Moreover, I
question how healthy it is when a culture of lobbying becomes so
prevalent that foreign governments seeking to advance their objectives
in the United States may feel obliged to hire their own advocates in
this country.
We need to restore faith in government, and we can help to do that by
ensuring those who serve at the highest levels do not turn around and
use their influence and expertise gained during public service for
personal profit and foreign interests. My legislation will help
buttress the framework of restrictions that we as members of the
Government impose on ourselves to ensure this broader good. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
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. 3713
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO FOREIGN ENTITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 207(f) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting
``5 years''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `foreign
entity' means--
``(A) the government of a foreign country, as defined in
section 1(e) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938
(22 U.S.C. 611(e));
``(B) a foreign political party, as defined in section 1(f)
of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C.
611(f)); and
``(C) a partnership, association, corporation,
organization, or other combination of persons organized under
the laws of or having its principal place of business in a
foreign country.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 141(b)(3)
of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(b)(3)) is amended by
striking ``(as defined by section 207(f)(3) of title 18,
United States Code)'' and inserting ``described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 207(f)(3) of title 18,
United States Code,''.
(c) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments made
by subsection (a) shall--
[[Page S6889]]
(1) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) apply to any individual who leaves a position, office,
or employment to which the amendments apply on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
4_____
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr.
Kaufman):
S. 3717. A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Investment Company Act of 1940, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
to provide for certain disclosures under section 552 of title 5, United
States Code, (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act),
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce an
important bipartisan bill to ensure that the Freedom of Information
Act, FOIA, remains an effective tool to provide public access to
critical information about the stability of our financial markets. My
bill would amend the Securities and Exchange Act, the Investment
Company Act and the Investment Advisers Act to eliminate several broad
FOIA exemptions for Security and Exchange Commission records that were
recently enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act. I thank Senators Cornyn, Kaufman and Grassley
for cosponsoring this important open government bill.
I am a proud supporter of the historic Wall Street reform bill that
has now become law, because this legislation makes significant strides
toward enhancing transparency and accountability in our financial
system. But, I am concerned that the FOIA exemptions in Section 929I of
that bill, which was originally drafted in the House of Representatives
and included in the final law, could be interpreted and implemented by
the SEC in a way that undermines this very important goal.
The Freedom of Information Act has long been the people's window into
their Government, showing where the Government is doing things right,
but also where Government can do better. The FOIA has also long
recognized the need to balance the Government's legitimate interest in
protecting confidential business records, trade secrets and other
sensitive information from public disclosure and the public's right to
know. To accomplish this, care must always be taken to ensure that
exemptions to FOIA's disclosure requirements are narrowly and properly
applied.
When Congress enacted these exemptions, we were seeking to ensure
that the SEC had access to the information that the Commission needs to
carry-out its new enforcement powers and to protect American
investors--not shielding information from the public.
I have been troubled by the Commission's attempts in recent weeks to
retroactively apply these exemptions to pending FOIA matters. I am also
troubled by the sweeping interpretation that the Commission has
expressed, to date, that these exemptions would shield all information
provided to the Commission in connection with its broad examination and
surveillance activities.
This week, I called on the Commission to promptly issue guidelines
that interpret the FOIA exemptions in Section 929I in a manner that is
both consistent with congressional intent and with the President's
January 21, 2009, Executive Memorandum on the Freedom of Information
Act. I look forward to the public release of those guidelines. Given
the overwhelming public interest in restoring stability and
accountability to our financial system, Congress must also take steps
to address concerns about the exemptions in Section 929I.
I thank the many open government organizations, including OpenThe
Government.org, the Project on Government Oversight, the American
Library Association and the Sunlight Foundation for their support of
this bill.
I have said many times that open government is neither a Democratic
issue, nor a Republican issue--it is truly an American value and virtue
that we all must uphold. It is in this bipartisan spirit that Senators
from both sides of the aisle have joined me in supporting this bill. I
look forward to working with them and others in Congress to ensure that
the American public has access to important information about the SEC's
oversight of our financial markets.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
a letter of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 3717
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT TO
CERTAIN STATUTES.
(a) Amendments to the Securities and Exchange Act.--Section
24 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78x), as
amended by section 929I(a) of the Dodd-Frank Consumer
Financial Protection and Wall Street Reform Act (Public Law
111-203), is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting
the following:
``(e) Freedom of Information Act.--For purposes of section
552(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code, (commonly referred
to as the Freedom of Information Act)--
``(1) the Commission is an agency responsible for the
regulation or supervision of financial institutions; and
``(2) any entity for which the Commission is responsible
for regulating, supervising, or examining under this title is
a financial institution.''.
(b) Amendments to the Investment Company Act.--Section 31
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-30), as
amended by section 929I(b) of the Dodd-Frank Consumer
Financial Protection and Wall Street Reform Act (Public Law
111-203), is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively.
(c) Amendments to the Investment Advisers Act.--Section 210
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-10), as
amended by section 929I(c) of the Dodd-Frank Consumer
Financial Protection and Wall Street Reform Act (Public Law
111-203), is amended by striking subsection (d).
____
August 3, 2010.
Senator Christopher Dodd,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Representative Barney Frank,
Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen Dodd and Frank: We, the undersigned
organizations concerned with government accountability and
transparency, are writing to express our concerns about
Section 929I of the recently passed Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act). If
interpreted broadly, this provision has the potential to
severely hinder the public's ability to access critical
information related to the oversight activities of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), thereby undermining
the bill's overarching goals of more transparency and
accountability.
As you know, Section 929I states that the SEC cannot be
compelled to disclose records or other information obtained
from its registered entities--including entities such as
hedge funds, private equity funds, and venture capital funds
that will now be regulated by the SEC--if this information is
used for ``surveillance, risk assessments, or other
regulatory and oversight activities'' outlined in the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act
of 1940, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro wrote to you last week defending
this provision. She argued that registered entities need to
be able to provide the SEC with access to sensitive or
proprietary information ``without concern that the
information will later be made public.'' She further
explained that, prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act,
``regulated entities not infrequently refused to provide
Commission examiners with sensitive information due to their
fears that it ultimately would be disclosed publicly.'' She
also claimed that investment advisers routinely refuse to
turn over personal trading records of investment management
personnel, ``instead requiring staff to review hard copies of
the records on the adviser's premises,'' which ``materially
impacts the staff's ability to detect insider trading
activity.''
These arguments do not adequately describe the SEC's
existing regulatory authority, and they fail to acknowledge
that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) already provides
sufficient exemptions to protect against the release of
sensitive and proprietary information. Furthermore, the SEC
has a troubling history of being overly aggressive in
withholding records from the public. For these reasons, we
strongly urge you to repeal Section 929I, or to at least
curtail the SEC's broad authority to withhold critical
information from the public.
First, we are not convinced by Chairman Schapiro's claim
that ``existing FOIA exemptions were insufficient to allay
concerns [about public disclosure] due in part to limitations
in FOIA.'' For instance, Exemption 8 protects matters that
are ``contained in or related to examination, operating, or
condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use
of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of
financial institutions.'' Chairman Schapiro argues that this
[[Page S6890]]
exemption may not apply to all registrants, but it's worth
noting that the courts have broadly construed the term
``financial institutions,'' holding that it is not limited to
depository institutions and can also include investment
advisers. In addition, Exemption 4 protects ``trade secrets
and commercial or financial information obtained from a
person [that is] privileged or confidential.'' The Department
of Justice's (DOJ) FOIA guide states that this exemption
``encourages submitters to voluntarily furnish useful
commercial or financial information to the government and it
correspondingly provides the government with an assurance
that such information will be reliable,'' calling into
question Chairman Schapiro's claim that additional exemptions
are needed in order for the SEC to collect information from
its registered entities.
Second, the SEC's track record with FOIA raises additional
concerns about giving the agency even more authority to
withhold information from the public. Last year, an audit
conducted by the SEC Office of Inspector General (OIG)
uncovered a wide range of problems related to the SEC's FOIA
operations. We were particularly troubled by the OIG's
finding that the SEC Chief FOIA Officer was not operating in
compliance with Executive Order 13392 or the OPEN Government
Act; that few FOIA liaisons have written policies and
procedures for processing FOIA requests, increasing the risk
that the agency is unnecessarily withholding information from
the public; and that there is an insufficient separation
between the initial FOIA determination and the appeal
process.
The OIG concluded that the SEC's FOIA release rate was
``significantly lower when compared to all other federal
agencies.''
The OIG put forth a number of recommendations for
correcting the glaring deficiencies in the SEC's FOIA
operations, such as ensuring that accurate searches are made
for responsive information, providing guidelines or written
policies for all FOIA-related staff that address the concerns
raised by the OIG, and ensuring that all FOIA-related staff
has access to sufficient legal expertise to process requests
in compliance with FOIA. But according to the OIG's most
recent semiannual report to Congress, the SEC has not
completed final action on any of these recommendations.
Rather than giving the SEC any more leeway to improperly
withhold information from the public, we urge you to hold
Chairman Schapiro accountable for the excessive delays in
implementing the OIG's recommendations.
Third, we notice that Chairman Schapiro is ``asking the
Commission to issue and publish on our website guidance to
our staff that ensures [Section 929I] is used only as it was
intended.'' The solution for addressing the uncertainty
surrounding this provision is not additional guidance. The
solution is clarification in the law that public access is
vital to accountability and that the existing FOIA exemptions
can adequately protect confidential business information
provided by regulated entities.
Fourth, Chairman Schapiro neglected to mention that the SEC
already has the authority to compel registered entities to
provide information and records. Under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the SEC has the authority to subpoena
witnesses and require the production of any records from its
registered entities. If these entities fail to comply, the
SEC has the authority to suspend these entities, impose
significant monetary penalties, and refer cases to DOJ for
possible criminal proceedings. But instead of using these
existing authorities, Chairman Schapiro seems to think that
Congress needs to provide blanket FOIA exemptions in order to
convince the SEC's registered entities to cooperate. We think
such a blanket exemption fosters an environment that defers
to the entities it regulates and is unadvisable.
Finally, it is unclear what Chairman Schapiro's plans are
for implementing other blanket FOIA exemptions in the Dodd-
Frank Act, such as Section 404, which exempts the SEC from
FOIA with respect to any ``report, document, record, or
information'' received from investment advisers to private
funds.
In the aftermath of the recent financial crisis, the need
for greater transparency in our financial system is all too
apparent. The SEC's ongoing effort to withhold vital records
from the public undermines the spirit of the transparency
reforms in the Dodd-Frank Act, and flies in the face of
President Obama's guidance instructing agencies to adopt a
``presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their
commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher
in a new era of open Government.''
We call on you to repeal the unnecessary FOIA exemption in
Section 929I, examine the SEC's current record on withholding
information, and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure
that the SEC isn't given any additional authority to keep its
records under a veil of secrecy. We welcome an opportunity to
discuss this issue with you further. To reach our groups, you
or your staff may contact Angela Canterbury at the Project On
Government Oversight.
Sincerely,
American Library Association; American Association of Law
Libraries; Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in
Washington (CREW); Essential Information; Government
Accountability Project (GAP); Liberty Coalition; OMB
Watch; OpenTheGovernment.org; Project On Government
Oversight (POGO); Public Citizen; Sunlight Foundation.
______
By Mr. CARDIN:
S. 3718. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that
beneficiaries of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance receive financial
counseling and disclosure information regarding life insurance
payments, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Securing
America's Veterans Insurance Needs and Goals Act of 2010 or the SAVINGS
Act of 2010. This is similar to a bill introduced in the House of
Representatives by Congresswoman Deborah Halvorson and House Committee
on Veterans' Affairs Chair Bob Filner.
This bill ensures that beneficiaries of the Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance, SGLI, program receive financial counseling and full
disclosure information regarding life insurance payments. Active duty
members of the Armed Forces will be given more information as they
decide on disbursement options for their beneficiaries. The SAVINGS Act
offers specific protections and alternatives to life insurance policy
beneficiaries. This bill requires an explanation of how the retained-
asset accounts differ from traditional checking accounts and leaves
flexibility for the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to
add more disclosure guidelines as he sees fit.
I present this bill to improve the process for our servicemembers and
their families. My concern is that what has become a common industry
practice, may not be an appropriate solution for every family. The
SAVINGS Act addresses this challenge by requiring a greater level of
disclosure and financial counseling to beneficiaries. This bill helps
families make sound financial decisions during a most difficult time.
It will assist Marylanders and other Americans in difficult times.
Last week National Public Radio profiled my constituent Cindy Lohman,
of Great Mills, MD. Ms. Lohman lost her son Ryan when he was killed in
a bombing in Afghanistan in August 2008. She had no idea that the
package sent to her from the life insurance company would lead to more
difficulty, during an already unbearable time.
While a mother grieved, Prudential the company that administers the
SGLI policies on behalf of the Veterans Affairs Secretary began to
process her survivor's benefits. Understandably too distraught to take
immediate action, Ms. Lohman put away the package for 6 months. After
looking over the many pages of printed forms and seeing what appeared
to be a checkbook, Ms. Lohman assumed the money was in a checking
account.
There were many details in that packet from the insurance company
disclaimers and other specifics about the account. It turns out that
this was not a standard, FDIC-insured account, but a retained-asset
account managed by the insurance company.
As we send soldiers to fight overseas, our support for our
servicemembers and their families must remain steadfast and strong. I
am proud to serve in this Congress that has worked to honor our
commitment to our nation's veterans and to the families of our fallen
heroes. This is a good bill because it shows our commitment to do what
is in the best interest of the families of the noble men and women who
serve in uniform.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 3725. A bill to-prevent the importation of merchandise into the
United States in a manner that evades antidumping and countervailing
duty orders, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enforcing
Orders and Reducing Circumvention and Evasion Act--or the ENFORCE Act--
of 2010.
We all know what a tax cheat is; well let me tell you about a trade
cheat.
You see, under U.S. trade laws, when a certain import is found to be
unfairly traded, that is, it benefits from government subsidies or is
sold below market prices, the U.S. Department of Commerce imposes
additional duties on these imports. These duties, we call them anti-
dumping and countervailing duties, or AD/CVD, ensure that American
producers are only asked to compete on a playing field that is level.
[[Page S6891]]
But we have these trade cheats out there. They cheat American
taxpayers out of the revenue that is supposed to be collected on
imports, and which is needed to reduce the budget deficit, and they
cheat American producers out of business that may otherwise be theirs.
In short, the trade cheats steal American jobs and America's treasure.
The U.S.' AD/CVD laws form its industries' protective backbone
against injury from illegally dumped or subsidized imports. However,
these trade remedy laws are only effective to the extent that they are
enforced. We have an enforcement problem.
The trade cheats are increasingly--and brazenly--employing a variety
of schemes to evade AD/CVD orders. Sometimes, they hustle their
merchandise through foreign ports to claim that it originates from
somewhere it doesn't. Other times, the trade cheats will provide
fraudulent information to government authorities at American ports of
entry, or engage in schemes to mislabel and misrepresent imports.
U.S. industry sources estimate that approximately $91 million in AD/
CV duties that were supposed to be applied to just four steel products
went uncollected as a result of evasion in 2009. This is an amount
equal to 30 percent of all AD/CV duties CBP collected that year. With
300 current AD/CVD orders in place on countless products from over 40
countries, the potential for AD/CV duty evasion is vast, and hundreds
of millions of AD/CV duties may be unaccounted for. Every penny counts
and we have an obligation to the American businesses, and the workers
they rely on, to do a better job.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, is the nation's
frontline defense against unfair trade and is responsible for enforcing
U.S. trade remedy laws and collecting AD/CV duties. Yet if you listen
to the concerns of domestic producers, as I and many of my colleagues
do, timely and effective enforcement of AD/CVD orders remains
problematic and AD/CV duty evasion continues, seemingly unabated.
I have enormous respect for the men and women of CBP who manage U.S.
borders, and believe its new commissioner is committed to improving the
trade enforcement and trade facilitation functions of CBP. When U.S.
producers spend the time and resources to submit to CBP evidence of AD/
CVD evasion, CBP should be held accountable to acting on that evidence
and communicating its actions to U.S. industry in a timely manner. It
is not held accountable now to the degree it should be. I grow
concerned that U.S. producers are spending too much time and resources
trying to indentify unfair trade and help government agencies enforce
the trade laws. American industry needs to be free to do what it does
best, which is to innovate and produce goods that are competitive in
free and fair markets.
The bill I am introducing today, with my friend and colleague,
Senator Snowe from Maine, will go a long way toward empowering the
Federal Government to do a better job to combat the trade cheats and
enforce U.S. trade laws. I'd like to highlight just a few of the main
provisions.
First, the ENFORCE Act will expand the U.S. Department of Commerce's
authority to investigate circumvention to include misrepresented
merchandise that might evade AD/CVD orders. As the agency tasked with
investigating allegations of dumping and harmful government
subsidization, Commerce has the industry and product expertise to
investigate this type of AD/CVD circumvention. This bill will not
diminish CBP's role; rather, it will bolster greater cooperation and
information sharing between the two agencies to combat the unfair trade
practices that hurt U.S. industry and its ability to create jobs.
Second, the bill will create a process by which U.S. industry can
submit to CBP a formal petition containing allegations of AD/CVD
evasion, and CBP must reach a conclusive determination within a set
time period. If it cannot, then the petition is transferred to the
Department of Commerce for separate circumvention proceedings. The
ENFORCE Act will require a greater level of responsiveness and
accountability to U.S. producers while providing for increased
collaboration between these two government agencies to improve
enforcement of U.S. trade laws.
Third, the bill will enhance information among the federal agencies
once an importer is suspected of evading an AD/CVD order. Many of the
same schemes importers employ to evade an AD/CVD order, like
mislabeling, often shirk other regimes put in place to ensure that
products are safe for consumption by American families. Enhanced
information sharing will provide greater protection against imports
that may cause harm to U.S. consumers.
This bill presents a commonsense strategy to combat trade cheating
and the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty collection.
Enforcing U.S. trade laws and combating unfair trade practices must be
a central pillar of an economic and trade policy that is designed to
promote economic growth and job expansion. I look forward to working
with my colleagues in the Senate and with my friends in the House of
Representatives to build support for this initiative and to take action
on behalf of American producers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3725
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 ``Enforcing Orders and
Reducing Circumvention and Evasion Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. PROCEDURES FOR PREVENTION OF CIRCUMVENTION AND
EVASION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY
ORDERS.
(a) In General.--Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
781 the following:
``SEC. 781A. PROCEDURES FOR PREVENTION OF CIRCUMVENTION AND
EVASION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY
ORDERS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Commissioner.--The term `Commissioner' means the
Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection.
``(2) Covered merchandise.--
``(A) In general.--The term `covered merchandise' means
merchandise that--
``(i) is subject to--
``(I) an antidumping duty order issued under section 736;
``(II) a finding issued under the Antidumping Act, 1921; or
``(III) a countervailing duty order issued under section
706; and
``(ii) is represented in any manner, including by
mislabeling, misidentification, or misreporting of the
merchandise, as merchandise that--
``(I) is not subject to such an order or finding; or
``(II) is subject to a lower rate of duty than the rate of
duty applicable to the merchandise under such an order or
finding.
``(B) Applicability to determinations of the administering
authority.--For purposes of investigations and determinations
of the administering authority under subsection (b), the
administering authority shall determine if merchandise is
covered merchandise without regard to the intent of the
importer.
``(b) Prevention by Administering Authority.--
``(1) Procedures for initiating investigations.--
``(A) Initiation by administering authority.--An
investigation under this subsection shall be initiated with
respect to merchandise imported into the United States
whenever the administering authority determines, from
information available to the administering authority, that an
investigation is warranted with respect to whether the
merchandise is covered merchandise.
``(B) Initiation by petition or referral.--
``(i) In general.--The administering authority shall
determine whether to initiate an investigation under this
subparagraph not later than 30 days after the date on which
the administering authority receives a petition described in
clause (ii) or a referral described in clause (iii).
``(ii) Petition described.--A petition described in this
clause is a petition that--
``(I) is filed with the administering authority by an
interested party specified in subparagraph (A), (C), (D),
(E), (F), or (G) of section 771(9);
``(II) alleges that merchandise imported into the United
States is covered merchandise; and
``(III) is accompanied by information reasonably available
to the petitioner supporting those allegations.
``(iii) Referral described.--A referral described in this
clause is a referral made by the Commissioner pursuant to
subsection (c)(2)(B).
``(2) Time limits for determinations.--
``(A) Preliminary determination.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the
administering authority initiates an investigation under
paragraph (1) with respect to merchandise, the administering
authority shall issue a preliminary determination, based on
information available to the administering authority at the
time of the determination, with respect to whether there
[[Page S6892]]
is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the
merchandise is covered merchandise.
``(ii) Expedited procedures.--If the administering
authority determines that expedited action is warranted with
respect to an investigation initiated under paragraph (1),
the administering authority may publish the notice of
initiation of the investigation and the notice of the
preliminary determination in the Federal Register at the same
time.
``(B) Final determination by the administering authority.--
The administering authority shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, issue a final determination with respect to
whether merchandise is covered merchandise not later than 180
days after the date on which the administering authority
initiates an investigation under paragraph (1) with respect
to the merchandise.
``(3) Access to information.--
``(A) Entry documents and records.--Upon receiving a
request from the administering authority, and not later than
the date on which the administering authority initiates an
investigation under paragraph (1) with respect to
merchandise, the Commissioner shall transmit to the
administering authority copies of the documentation and
information required by section 484(a)(1) with respect to the
entry of the merchandise.
``(B) Access of interested parties.--Not later than 10
business days after the date on which the administering
authority initiates an investigation under paragraph (1) with
respect to merchandise, the administering authority shall
provide to the authorized representative of each interested
party that filed a petition under paragraph (1) or otherwise
participates in a proceeding, pursuant to a protective order,
the copies of the entry documentation and information
received by the administering authority under subparagraph
(A).
``(4) Effect of affirmative preliminary determination.--If
the administering authority makes a preliminary determination
under paragraph (2)(A) that merchandise is covered
merchandise, the administering authority shall instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection--
``(A) to suspend liquidation of each entry of the
merchandise that--
``(i) enters on or after the date of the preliminary
determination; or
``(ii) enters before that date, if the liquidation of the
entry is not final on that date; and
``(B) to require the posting of a cash deposit for each
entry of the merchandise in an amount determined pursuant to
the order or finding described in subsection (a)(2)(A)(i), or
administrative review conducted under section 751, that
applies to the merchandise.
``(5) Effect of affirmative final determination.--
``(A) In general.--If the administering authority makes a
final determination under paragraph (2)(B) that merchandise
is covered merchandise, the administering authority shall
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection--
``(i) to assess duties on the merchandise in an amount
determined pursuant to the order or finding described in
subsection (a)(2)(A)(i), or administrative review conducted
under section 751, that applies to the merchandise;
``(ii) notwithstanding section 501, to reliquidate, in
accordance with such order, finding, or administrative
review, each entry of the merchandise that was liquidated--
``(I) on or after the date that is one year before the date
on which the investigation was initiated under paragraph (1)
with respect to the merchandise; and
``(II) before the date of the final determination; and
``(iii) to review and reassess the amount of bond or other
security the importer is required to post for such
merchandise entered on or after the date of the final
determination to ensure the protection of revenue and
compliance with the law.
``(B) Additional authority.--If the administering authority
makes a final determination under paragraph (2)(B) that
merchandise is covered merchandise, the administering
authority may instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to
require the importer of the merchandise to post a cash
deposit or bond on such merchandise entered on or after the
date of the final determination in an amount the
administering authority determines in the final determination
to be owed with respect to the merchandise.
``(6) Effect of negative final determination.--If the
administering authority makes a final determination under
paragraph (2)(B) that merchandise is not covered merchandise,
the administering authority shall terminate the suspension of
liquidation and refund any cash deposit imposed pursuant to
paragraph (4) with respect to the merchandise.
``(7) Special rule for cases in which the producer or
exporter is unknown.--If the administering authority is
unable to determine the actual producer or exporter of the
merchandise with respect to which the administering authority
initiated an investigation under paragraph (1), the
administering authority shall, in requiring the posting of a
cash deposit under paragraph (4) or assessing duties pursuant
to paragraph (5)(A), impose the cash deposit or duties (as
the case may be) in the highest amount applicable to any
producer or exporter of the merchandise pursuant to any order
or finding described in subsection (a)(2)(A)(i), or any
administrative review conducted under section 751.
``(8) Publication of determinations.--The administering
authority shall publish each preliminary determination made
under paragraph (2)(A) and each final determination made
under paragraph (2)(B) in the Federal Register.
``(9) Referrals to other agencies.--
``(A) After preliminary determination.--Notwithstanding
section 777 and subject to subparagraph (C), when the
administering authority makes an affirmative preliminary
determination under paragraph (2)(A), the administering
authority shall--
``(i) transmit the administrative record to the
Commissioner for such additional action as the Commissioner
determines appropriate, including proceedings under section
592; and
``(ii) at the request of the head of another agency,
transmit the administrative record to the head of that
agency.
``(B) After final determination.--Notwithstanding section
777 and subject to subparagraph (C), when the administering
authority makes an affirmative final determination under
paragraph (2)(B), the administering authority shall--
``(i) transmit the complete administrative record to the
Commissioner; and
``(ii) at the request of the head of another agency,
transmit the complete administrative record to the head of
that agency.
``(C) Protective orders.--Before transmitting the
administrative record with respect to a proceeding to the
Commissioner or the head of another agency under subparagraph
(A) or (B), the administering authority shall verify that
U.S. Customs and Border Protection or such other agency (as
the case may be) has in effect with respect to the
administrative record a protective order that provides the
same or a similar level of protection for the information in
the administrative record as the protective order in effect
with respect to such information under this subsection.
``(c) Prevention by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.--
``(1) Investigations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of the Enforcing Orders and Reducing
Circumvention and Evasion Act of 2010, the Commissioner, in
consultation with the Under Secretary for International Trade
of the Department of Commerce and subject to the requirements
of this subsection, shall establish procedures--
``(A) to permit an interested party specified in
subparagraph (A), (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of section
771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) to
submit to U.S. Customs and Border Protection a petition
alleging that an importer is importing covered merchandise
into the United States;
``(B) to investigate the allegations in a petition
submitted under subparagraph (A) and make determinations or
referrals under paragraph (2) with respect to those
allegations; and
``(C) to notify the interested party that submitted the
petition of the determination or referral (as the case may
be) and the outcome of the investigation.
``(2) Determinations; referrals.--Not later than 60 days
after a petition is submitted under paragraph (1)(B), the
Commissioner shall--
``(A) make a determination with respect to whether an
importer is importing covered merchandise into the United
States based on whether the Commissioner has a reasonable
basis to believe or suspect that the importer is importing
such merchandise; or
``(B) if the Commissioner is unable to make such a
determination--
``(i) refer the matter to the administering authority for
additional proceedings under subsection (b); and
``(ii) transmit to the administering authority--
``(I) the petition submitted under paragraph (1)(A);
``(II) copies of the entry documents and information
required by section 484(a)(1) relating to the merchandise;
and
``(III) to the extent otherwise permitted by law, any
additional records or information that the Commissioner
considers appropriate.
``(3) Suspension of liquidation and deposit requirement.--
``(A) In general.--If the Commissioner makes a
determination under paragraph (2) that an importer is
importing covered merchandise into the United States, the
Commissioner shall--
``(i) suspend liquidation of each entry of the merchandise
that--
``(I) enters on or after the date of the determination; or
``(II) enters before that date, if the liquidation of the
entry is not final on that date; and
``(ii) with respect to each entry of the merchandise
referred to in clause (i), require the posting of a cash
deposit, assess any duties, and impose any other requirements
that are applicable to the merchandise under an order or
finding described in subsection (a)(2)(A)(i) or pursuant to
an administrative review conducted under section 751.
``(B) Special rule for cases in which the producer or
exporter is unknown.--If the Commissioner is unable to
determine the actual producer or exporter of merchandise with
respect to which the Commissioner initiated an investigation
under paragraph (1)(B), the Commissioner shall, in requiring
the posting of a cash deposit or assessing duties under
subparagraph (A)(ii), impose the cash deposit or duties (as
the case may be) in
[[Page S6893]]
the highest amount applicable to any producer or exporter of
the merchandise pursuant to an order or finding described in
subsection (a)(2)(A)(i) or an administrative review conducted
under section 751.
``(d) Cooperation Between U.S. Customs and Border
Protection and the Department of Commerce.--
``(1) Notification of investigations.--
``(A) Investigations by administering authority.--Upon
receiving a petition and upon initiating an investigation
under subsection (b), the administering authority shall
notify the Commissioner.
``(B) Investigations by u.s. customs and border
protection.--Upon initiating an investigation under
subsection (c), the Commissioner shall notify the
administering authority.
``(2) Procedures for cooperation.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of the Enforcing Orders and
Reducing Circumvention and Evasion Act of 2010, the
Commissioner and the administering authority shall establish
procedures to ensure maximum cooperation and communication
between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the
administering authority in order to quickly, efficiently, and
accurately investigate allegations of circumvention or
evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
``(e) Annual Report on Preventing Circumvention and Evasion
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than February 28 of each year
beginning in 2012, the Under Secretary for International
Trade of the Department of Commerce and the Commissioner
shall jointly submit to the Committee on Finance and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee
on Ways and Means and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives a report on the efforts being taken
under subsections (b) and (c) to prevent circumvention and
evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
``(2) Contents.--Each report required by paragraph (1)
shall include, for the year preceding the submission of the
report--
``(A)(i) the number of investigations initiated pursuant to
subsection (b); and
``(ii) a description of such investigations, including--
``(I) the results of such investigations; and
``(II) the amount of antidumping and countervailing duties
collected as a result of such investigations;
``(B)(i) the number of petitions submitted pursuant to
subsection (c)(1); and
``(ii) a description of the investigations initiated by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection pursuant to subsection (c)
and any enforcement actions related to the investigations,
including--
``(I) the results of the investigations; and
``(II) the amount of antidumping and countervailing duties
collected as a result of the investigations;
``(C)(i) the number of inquiries initiated pursuant to
section 781; and
``(ii) a description of such inquiries, including--
``(I) the results of such inquiries; and
``(II) the amount of antidumping and countervailing duties
collected as a result of such inquiries; and
``(D) a description of investigations initiated by other
Federal agencies as a result of referrals under subsection
(b)(10).''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents for title
VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 781 the following:
``Sec. 781A. Procedures for prevention of circumvention and evasion of
antidumping and countervailing duty orders.''.
(c) Judicial Review.--Section 516A(a)(2) of the Tariff Act
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i)(I), by striking ``or (viii)''
and inserting ``(viii), or (ix)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting at the end the
following:
``(ix) A determination by the administering authority or
the Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection under section 781A.''.
(d) Time Limits for Determinations of Circumvention.--
Section 781(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(f))
is amended by striking ``, to the maximum extent
practicable,''.
(e) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act--
(1) the Secretary of Commerce shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out subsection (b)
of section 781A of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as added by
subsection (a) of this section); and
(2) the Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and
Border Protection shall prescribe such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out subsection (c) of such section 781A.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall--
(1) take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) apply with respect to merchandise entered on or after
such date of enactment.
SEC. 3. MODIFICATIONS TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS.
Section 777(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1677f(c)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) Protective order.--
``(i) In general.--Except as specifically provided in this
subparagraph, the protective order under which information is
made available shall contain such requirements as the
administering authority or the Commission may determine by
regulation to be appropriate. The administering authority and
the Commission shall provide by regulation for such sanctions
as the administering authority and the Commission determine
to be appropriate, including disbarment from practice before
the agency.
``(ii) Concurrent proceedings.--In the case of concurrent
proceedings covering the same subject merchandise conducted
pursuant to subtitles A and B of this title, a single
protective order shall be issued for both proceedings.
``(iii) Applicability to proceedings before u.s. customs
and border protection.--A protective order issued pursuant to
this paragraph shall authorize the use of business
proprietary information made available pursuant to a
protective order in proceedings before U.S. Customs and
Border Protection.''.
SEC. 4. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT.
Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to the Committee on Finance and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a report assessing the effectiveness of--
(1) the provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act;
and
(2) the actions taken and procedures developed by the
Secretary of Commerce and the Commissioner responsible for
U.S. Customs and Border Protection pursuant to such
provisions and amendments to prevent circumvention and
evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders under
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.).
SEC. 5. ALLOCATION OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
PERSONNEL.
The Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure
that U.S. Customs and Border Protection--
(1) employs sufficient personnel who have expertise and
responsibility for preventing the importation of merchandise
in a manner that evades antidumping and countervailing duty
orders issued under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671 et seq.); and
(2) assigns sufficient personnel with primary
responsibility for preventing the importation of merchandise
in a manner that evades antidumping and countervailing duty
orders to the ports of entry in the United States at which
the Commissioner determines the largest quantity of
merchandise imported in such a manner entered the United
States during the most recent 2-year period for which data
are available.
SEC. 6. APPLICATION TO CANADA AND MEXICO.
Pursuant to article 1902 of the North American Free Trade
Agreement and section 408 of the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act, the amendments made by this Act
shall apply with respect to goods from Canada and Mexico.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Kohl, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 3728. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to extend
protection to fashion design, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the
Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act. For years I
have been supportive of moving this legislation forward. It not only
underscores the importance of the fashion design industry to our
economy but will ensure that new and innovative fashion designs are
afforded proper copyright protection.
Throughout my service in the Senate, I have worked on a whole host of
intellectual property-related initiatives. There is no doubt that
legislating in this area is difficult. It is necessary, however, to
maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy and to
continue our country's leadership in global innovation.
Make no mistake about it: piracy and counterfeiting are the new face
of economic crime around the world, far exceeding traditional property
crimes. These crimes are the very antitheses of creativity--crippling
growth and stifling innovation in their wake.
Last Congress I worked closely with my Senate Judiciary Committee
colleagues and others in passing the PRO-IP Act, which was signed into
law by President George W. Bush on October 13, 2008. There is no doubt
the PRO-IP bill will ensure that resources are available to enforce
intellectual property laws and coordinate the government's intellectual
property policies.
[[Page S6894]]
Yet there are no laws prohibiting design piracy.
Currently, original designs are copied and the apparel is
manufactured in countries with cheap labor, typically in mainland
China, Hong Kong, Pakistan, and Singapore. The garments are then
shipped into the U.S. to directly compete with the garments of the
original designer, sometimes before the originals have even hit the
market. As a result, the U.S. apparel industry continues to lose
billions of dollars to counterfeiting each year.
We must ensure that all property rights, including fashion designs,
are protected both here and abroad. Counterfeiting and piracy sap our
country's economic strength. Plain and simple, when a company loses
revenues to piracy or counterfeited goods, it does not have those
resources to reinvest into making more of its goods. And that means
lost jobs. This domino effect ensnares all within its reach.
These crimes not only affect the individual company, but they also
adversely affect the companies that would have contributed to or
benefitted from the unmade goods. Suppliers of raw materials and
components as well as shippers, distributors, and retailers, all take
the hit.
In my home State of Utah, I am mindful of the designers who make a
meaningful contribution to the fashion industry. Utah designers like
Nappi, Modurrn, and CherellaUSA are committed to quality and original
clothing lines. These designers, and many more across the Nation, must
know that after spending their time and money in developing new and
unique fashion designs, their works are protected from infringers. They
should be able to secure and enforce adequate copyright protections for
their hard work.
The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act represents
a true compromise. The proposed legislation is the product of an
intensive year of negotiations with interested stakeholders. Among
other things, the compromise language provides protection to truly
unique fashion designs. In order to be considered an infringing design,
a plaintiff must demonstrate that a design copy is ``substantially
identical.''
I am pleased with the progress that has already been made on the bill
and look forward to working with my colleagues on further refinements
as it moves through the legislative process.
______
By Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kaufman,
Mr. Begich, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 3732. A bill to establish within the Department of Education the
Innovation Inspiration school grant program, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill, the Innovation
Inspiration school grant program. This legislation will give high
school students in New Hampshire and across the country access to non-
traditional science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs
as well as the opportunity to be mentored by professionals in those
fields.
I am proud to be joined in introducing this bill today with Senators
Reid, Dorgan, Kaufman, Begich, Bingaman and Kerry and thank them for
their support.
We hear so often about the importance of STEM fields and our future
economy. These fields--commonly defined as the science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics--are central to U.S. economic
competitiveness and growth. In fact, projections by the U.S. Labor
Department show that STEM-related fields are expected to be the fastest
growing occupations of the next decade.
What is worrisome, though, is that too few students in the United
States are pursuing education in these STEM fields to keep up with the
increased demand in the workforce. For those students that do embark in
STEM education, too often they are being outperformed by international
competitors.
Simply put, I believe that in today's global economy American
students must have access to better STEM training, have the opportunity
to be mentored by professionals in the field and be engaged in the
study of these critical fields at deeper, more meaningful levels.
This legislation, the Innovation Inspiration School Grant Program,
does that. It will bolster our student's access to quality non-
traditional STEM programs. It will grow the STEM pipeline and broaden
access to careers in science, technology, engineering and math.
We all recognize that community partnerships and especially mentors
for our young people are essential to their success. The Innovation
Inspiration School Grant Program will provide states and schools
critical resources to engage community members and professional mentors
who are working in the STEM fields. I believe that by connecting
students with well-trained teachers and community mentors, we can
foster innovation at the high school level and inspire young people to
graduate high school, enter the workforce, or go onto college to major
in science and engineering and pursue careers in these fields.
Students in New Hampshire have been participating in non-traditional
STEM opportunities, such as those provided by FIRST Robotics, for over
20 years. And for these students, the experience has been life-
changing.
Take, for example, Aletha Evangelou, from Nashua, NH. As a result of
her experience in the Nashua High School FIRST Robotics team, a love of
engineering grew. She went on to major in mechanical engineering at the
University of New Hampshire and is now employed at a defense and
aerospace company in our state. She says ``I have been a full time
mechanical engineer at BAE Systems for two and a half years now, and I
can honestly say that I would not be here if I hadn't joined the FIRST
Robotics program. It completely changed my life.''
Aletha is just one example of many students who have benefitted from
the type of programs that are supported by this legislation. Every
student in every school across the country should have the opportunity
to have these sorts of experiences. This legislation does that.
I urge my colleagues to join me to ensure that high school graduates
have the skills and knowledge in the STEM fields necessary to succeed
in postsecondary education and develop the workforce of the 21st
century.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. Chambliss:
S. 3735. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act to improve the use of certain registered pesticides; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, our farmers, foresters, and ranchers
provide our Nation and the world with a safe, secure, and affordable
source of food and fiber. I have vigorously supported rural America
through my work as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry. We must do all we can to support these
communities, which are the backbone of our great Nation.
Unfortunately, because of aggressive litigation and federal courts
misinterpreting Congressional intent, our farmers, foresters, and
ranchers are facing new restrictions on their operations. Too often,
this results in obligations that are time-consuming, expensive, and
plainly unnecessary.
A prime example of this is the Environmental Protection Agency's,
EPA, effort to regulate the use of crop protection products under the
Clean Water Act. EPA, at the direction of the Federal courts, is
requiring Clean Water Act permits for pesticide applications even if an
application does not occur directly into the water. Congress never
intended for agricultural chemicals to be regulated under the Clean
Water Act.
Farm and forest chemical applications are already subject to another
federal statute that protects human health and the environment, the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA. Farm and
forest protection products regulated under FIFRA are subject to
rigorous scientific testing before they can be sold and used. In
addition, farmers and foresters must adhere to use instructions
contained on pesticide labels.
Subjecting farmers to an additional layer of bureaucracy under the
Clean Water Act is duplicative and unnecessary since human health and
the environment is already protected by FIFRA.
[[Page S6895]]
Clean Water Act permits for farm and forest chemical use will also be
expensive for pesticide applicators and for state regulatory agencies.
EPA has said that these new requirements will nearly double the number
of permittees under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System, NPDES. This will result in tens of thousands of dollars in new
costs and burdens for producers and state regulatory agencies who are
already suffering from lack of resources.
Today I am introducing legislation to clarify Congress' intent.
Farmers, foresters, and ranchers already comply with FIFRA and further
unnecessary regulation should not be required. I am pleased to be
joined by Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss. The
bill is very simple: as long as a farmer is complying with FIFRA, then
no Clean Water Act permit will be required. During the more than 35
years since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has never
required a NPDES permit for the application of FIFRA-registered crop
protection products. My bill would extend this common sense approach
and avoid duplicative, unnecessary burdens on our farmers, foresters,
and ranchers.
I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action on this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3735
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. USE OF REGISTERED PESTICIDES.
Section 3(f) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(f)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(5) Use of registered pesticides.--Notwithstanding any
other law, no permit shall be required for--
``(A) the use of a pesticide that is registered or
otherwise authorized for use under this Act, if that use is
in accordance with this Act; or
``(B)(i) the use of a biological control organism (as
defined in section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
7702)) for the prevention, control, or eradication of a plant
pest or noxious weed, if that use is in accordance with that
Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.); or
``(ii) the conduct of any other plant pest, noxious weed,
or pest control activity under that Act, if that activity is
conducted in accordance with that Act.''.
______
By. Mr. INHOFE:
S. 3736. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to allow States to opt out
of the corn ethanol portions of the renewable fuel standard; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, with the passage of the 2007 energy bill
(EISA), Congress doubled the corn-based ethanol mandate despite
mounting questions surrounding ethanol's compatibility with existing
engines, its transportation and infrastructure needs, its economic
sustainability, and numerous other issues. Then, as now, I argued it
was just too early to significantly increase the mandate and that the
fuels industry and engine manufacturers needed more time to adapt and
catch up with the many developing challenges facing corn-based ethanol.
From everything we have witnessed over the past 2\1/2\ years, I was
right. These mandates allow no room for error in a fuels industry
already constrained by tight credit, dwindling capacity, environmental
regulation, and volatile market conditions.
The corn ethanol mandate has also led to consumer backlash in parts
of the country. In my home state of Oklahoma, one convenience store
chain experienced a 30 percent drop in fuel sales once they began
selling fuel blended at E-10 levels. The consumers didn't want it. In
2008, the New York Times reported this growing consumer discontent from
Oklahoma City:
Why Do You Put Alcohol in Your Tank? demands a large sign
outside one gas station here, which reassures drivers that it
sells only ``100% Gas.''
``No Corn in Our Gas,'' advertises another station nearby.
Along the highways of this sprawling prairie city, and in
other pockets of the country, a mutiny is growing against
energy policies that heavily support and subsidize the
blending of ethyl alcohol, or ethanol, into gasoline.
Many consumers complain that ethanol, which constitutes as
much as 10 percent of the fuel they buy in most states, hurts
gas mileage and chokes the engines of their boats and
motorcycles.
Despite this consumer backlash, corn advocates are today pushing
Washington to require higher consumptions of ethanol. The most pressing
issue facing corn ethanol is the so-called ``blend wall'' of 10
percent. EISA mandated 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by
2015. But here is the problem: Federal regulations require that a
gallon of gasoline should contain no more than 10 percent ethanol. So
there will soon be more corn ethanol production than the amount of
ethanol allowed in gasoline.
So what is the solution? Corn ethanol advocates have the wrong
approach. Rather than rethink EISA's corn mandates, they are lobbying
for higher, mid-level ethanol blends in gasoline--higher than E10.
Sounds like a simple solution, except its consequences would be
dire, with potential damage to agriculture, the environment, and engine
equipment manufacturers.
Many on-road and non-road engines, vehicles, and equipment are not
specifically designed to run on ethanol blends of E10, let alone blends
as high as E15. The available evidence indicates that lawnmowers,
chainsaws, snowmobiles, recreational boats, motorcycles, and non-flex-
fuel cars and trucks produce higher evaporative and engine exhaust
emissions using mid-level ethanol blends. Also, mid-level ethanol
blends are more corrosive on certain metals and plastics used in many
fuel systems, and cause many gasoline-powered engines to run hotter and
at higher RPM levels. In turn, this results in adverse impacts on
starting, durability, operation, performance, and operator safety, due
to the degradation of critical components and safety devices.
The American Lung Association has noted that degradation of catalyst
efficiency, caused by increasing the ethanol content in gasoline, ``can
have a major impact on emissions.'' These higher blends of ethanol can
also cause NOX emissions to increase up to 25 percent. In
short, we need to be careful that the rapid ramp-up in ethanol use
doesn't result in the degradation of our country's air quality.
And many consumers complain about decreased fuel efficiency. Corn
Ethanol is 67 percent of the BTU content of gasoline. According to EPA,
vehicles ``operating on E85 usually experience a 20-30 percent drop in
miles per gallon due to ethanol's lower energy content.'' These results
were seconded by a Consumer Reports study that found E85 resulted in a
27 percent drop in fuel efficiency.
In my home state of Oklahoma, ethanol's blendwall has eliminated
consumer choice. Where consumers could once choose to purchase clear
gas, the blendwall is now forcing motorists to buy E10. The fuel
blenders and gas station owners have no option but to sell ethanol
blended gasoline despite strong consumer demand for clear gas.
Today I am introducing a simple three-page bill that responds to the
increasing call for more consumer choice in the ability to purchase
ethanol-free gasoline. Simply put, my bill allows a State to opt out of
the corn ethanol portions of the renewable fuel standard. To do so, a
State must pass a bill, signed by the governor, stating its election to
exercise this option. The opt-out would be recognized by the
administrator of the EPA, who would then reduce the amount of the
national corn ethanol mandate by the percentage amount of the State
which chooses to opt out. The bill also provides for the generation of
credits to hold harmless the refiners who would produce clear gasoline
sold in an opt-out State.
This legislation would allow a State to opt out of only the corn
ethanol mandate. It would not affect other portions of the renewable
fuel standard such as the cellulosic or advanced biofuels volumetric
requirements.
I believe Congress blundered in pushing too much corn ethanol too
fast. This bill will merely allow for fuel producers to respond to
market demands when and where consumers prefer clear gas. Right now
they can't do that.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 3738. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
incentives for clean energy manufacturing to reduce emissions, to
produce renewable energy, to promote conservation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
[[Page S6896]]
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Clean Energy
Technology Leadership Act. This legislation would provide tax
incentives for clean energy manufacturing, renewable energy, and
conservation. This is a critical package of incentives to drive the
development and deployment of clean energy technology in the United
States. It also will expand our manufacturing base to ensure that these
advanced energy technologies are made here in America.
This bill is not intended to serve as a substitute for comprehensive
energy and climate legislation. However, it does provide a near-term
opportunity to support the development and deployment of clean energy
technologies.
Congress must continue working on legislation that will put us on a
course to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the events
of the last several weeks have made it clear that there is no
bipartisan support for a strong energy and climate bill. In the
interim, we should act on areas where there is potential agreement. The
Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act is broad energy tax legislation
that focuses on tax incentives to encourage renewable energy and
conservation. This legislation would extend and improve existing
provisions in the tax code and provides some targeted new incentives.
The legislation would promote clean energy manufacturing by providing
additional funding for the advanced energy manufacturing credit and
uncapping the credit for solar energy property, fuel cell power
generation, and advanced energy storage systems, including batteries
for advanced vehicles. In addition, the legislation would extend the
credit for domestic manufacturers of energy appliances.
To encourage the production of renewable energy, the Clean Energy
Technology Leadership Act would extend for 2 years and codify the grant
in lieu of tax credit program created by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. It modifies the program to clarify that real
estate investment trusts and public power would be eligible for the
program. The legislation provides an additional $3.5 billion for clean
renewable energy bonds, with 60 percent allocated to public power and
the remaining 40 percent to cooperative electric rural companies. The
Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act extends the research and
development tax credit retroactively through 2012. For 2011 and 2012,
it would increase the R&D credit by ten percent for research
expenditures related to the fields of fuel cells and battery
technology, renewable energy, energy conservation technology, efficient
transmission and distribution of electricity, and carbon capture and
sequestration.
To encourage conservation, the Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act
would extend and modify tax incentives for new energy efficient homes,
nonbusiness energy property improvements, and energy efficient
commercial buildings. The bill also would provide incentives for clean
transportation by providing incentives for natural gas use in heavy
vehicles.
These provisions will encourage investments in developing and
deploying renewable energy and conservation solutions, which will
result in lower greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Energy Technology
Leadership Act is not a comprehensive energy and climate solution, but
I believe it is an important starting point. I am hopeful that we can
secure bipartisan support for these and other important tax provisions
and pass them this year.
______
By Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Burris, Ms. Cantwell,
Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Brown, of Ohio, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Merkley,
Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 3739. A bill to amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act to include bullying and harassment prevention programs;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CASEY. 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. 3739
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 ``Safe Schools Improvement Act
of 2010''.
SEC. 2. BULLYING AND HARASSMENT PREVENTION POLICIES,
PROGRAMS, AND STATISTICS.
(a) State Reporting Requirements.--Section
4112(c)(3)(B)(iv) of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 7112(c)(3)(B)(iv)) is amended by
inserting ``, including bullying and harassment,'' after
``violence''.
(b) State Application.--Section 4113(a) of such Act (20
U.S.C. 7113(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (F);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) (as amended by
subparagraph (A)) the following:
``(D) the incidence and prevalence of reported incidents of
bullying and harassment;
``(E) the perception of students regarding their school
environment, including with respect to the prevalence and
seriousness of incidents of bullying and harassment and the
responsiveness of the school to those incidents; and'';
(2) in paragraph (18), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) by redesignating paragraph (19) as paragraph (20); and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (18) (as amended by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(19) provides an assurance that the State educational
agency will provide assistance to school districts and
schools in their efforts to prevent and appropriately respond
to incidents of bullying and harassment and describes how the
State educational agency will meet the requirements of this
paragraph; and''.
(c) Local Educational Agency Program Application.--Section
4114(d) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7114(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(B)(i)--
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) performance indicators for bullying and harassment
prevention programs and activities; and''; and
(2) in paragraph (7)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, including
bullying and harassment'' after ``disorderly conduct'';
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) annual notice to parents and students describing the
full range of prohibited conduct contained in the discipline
policies described in subparagraph (A); and
``(G) grievance procedures for students or parents that
seek to register complaints regarding the prohibited conduct
contained in the discipline policies described in
subparagraph (A), including--
``(i) the name of the school district officials who are
designated as responsible for receiving such complaints; and
``(ii) timelines that the school district will follow in
the resolution of such complaints;''.
(d) Authorized Activities.--Section 4115(b)(2) of such Act
(20 U.S.C. 7115(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (vii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(viii) teach students about the consequences of bullying
and harassment.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (E), by adding at the end the
following:
``(xxiii) Programs that address the causes of bullying and
harassment and that train teachers, administrators,
specialized instructional support personnel, and other school
personnel regarding strategies to prevent bullying and
harassment and to effectively intervene when incidents of
bullying and harassment occur.''.
(e) Reporting.--Section 4116(a)(2)(B) of such Act (20
U.S.C. 7116(a)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting ``, including
bullying and harassment,'' after ``drug use and violence''.
(f) Impact Evaluation.--Section 4122 of such Act (20 U.S.C.
7132) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``and school
violence'' and inserting ``school violence, including
bullying and harassment,''; and
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by inserting
``, including bullying and harassment,'' after ``drug use and
violence''.
(g) Definitions.--
(1) Drug and violence prevention.--Paragraph (3)(B) of
section 4151 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7161) is amended by
inserting ``, bullying, and other harassment'' after ``sexual
harassment and abuse''.
(2) Protective factor, buffer, or asset.--Paragraph (6) of
such section is amended by inserting ``, including bullying
and harassment'' after ``violent behavior''.
(3) Risk factor.--Paragraph (7) of such section is amended
by inserting ``, including bullying and harassment'' after
``violent behavior''.
(4) Bullying and harassment.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (11) (as
amended by paragraphs (2) and (3)), as paragraphs (6) through
(13), respectively;
[[Page S6897]]
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) (as amended
by paragraph (1)), as paragraphs (2) through (4),
respectively;
(C) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (B)) the following:
``(1) Bullying.--The term `bullying'--
``(A) means conduct that adversely affects the ability of
one or more students to participate in or benefit from the
school's educational programs or activities by placing the
student (or students) in reasonable fear of physical harm;
and
``(B) includes conduct that is based on--
``(i) a student's actual or perceived--
``(I) race;
``(II) color;
``(III) national origin;
``(IV) sex;
``(V) disability;
``(VI) sexual orientation;
``(VII) gender identity; or
``(VIII) religion;
``(ii) any other distinguishing characteristics that may be
defined by a State or local educational agency; or
``(iii) association with a person or group with one or more
of the actual or perceived characteristics listed in clause
(i) or (ii).''; and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (4) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (B)) the following:
``(5) Harassment.--The term `harassment'--
``(A) means conduct that adversely affects the ability of
one or more students to participate in or benefit from the
school's educational programs or activities because the
conduct, as reasonably perceived by the student (or
students), is so severe, persistent, or pervasive; and
``(B) includes conduct that is based on--
``(i) a student's actual or perceived--
``(I) race;
``(II) color;
``(III) national origin;
``(IV) sex;
``(V) disability;
``(VI) sexual orientation;
``(VII) gender identity; or
``(VIII) religion;
``(ii) any other distinguishing characteristics that may be
defined by a State or local educational agency; or
``(iii) association with a person or group with one or more
of the actual or perceived characteristics listed in clause
(i) or (ii).''.
(h) Effect on Other Laws.--
(1) Amendment.--The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``SEC. 4156. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.
``(a) Federal and State Nondiscrimination Laws.--Nothing in
this part shall be construed to invalidate or limit rights,
remedies, procedures, or legal standards available to victims
of discrimination under any other Federal law or law of a
State or political subdivision of a State, including title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.),
title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681
et seq.), section 504 or 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C. 794, 794a), or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). The
obligations imposed by this part are in addition to those
imposed by title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), and the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
``(b) Free Speech and Expression Laws.--Nothing in this
part shall be construed to alter legal standards regarding,
or affect the rights (including remedies and procedures)
available to individuals under, other Federal laws that
establish protections for freedom of speech or expression.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6301 et seq.) is amended by adding after the item relating to
section 4155 the following:
``Sec. 4156. Effect on other laws.''.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator
Robert Casey and eight of my colleagues in introducing the Safe Schools
Improvement Act. This important legislation will help to address a
crisis going on in our schools--the bullying and harassment of our
children. We know that no child can achieve the high academic standards
set for them if they are living in fear of bullying or harassment. This
legislation will help change the culture in our classrooms and provide
schools with the tools they need to promote a safe learning
environment.
Findings from the 2007 National School Climate Survey demonstrated
that a significant number of students experienced harassment in our
schools, often because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
This study also revealed that 96 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender students in New York often heard words such as ``gay'' used
in a negative connotation. Furthermore, 93 percent of students
regularly heard homophobic remarks. The National School Climate Survey
also found that 20 percent of students in New York were physically
assaulted in their school because of their sexual orientation, while
another 13 percent were assaulted because of their gender expression.
This environment of harassment and bullying in our schools lowers the
academic performance of our students. In fact, 35 percent of LGBT
students reported to have skipped classes at least once in the past
month because they felt unsafe in their own school. I find this to be
unacceptable.
The Safe Schools Improvement Act will require schools and districts
receiving designated Federal funds to adopt codes of conduct
specifically prohibiting bullying and harassment, including conduct
based on a student's actual or perceived race, color, national origin,
sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or religion. The act would
ensure that schools and school districts focus on effective prevention
programs in order to better prevent and respond to incidences of
bullying and harassment, and would require that States report data on
incidences of bullying and harassment to the Department of Education.
This bill has received support from a broad coalition of nearly 70
education, civil rights, disability, religious, and youth service
organizations, such as the American Association of School
Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health
Association, National Association of School Psychologists, National
Education Association, National Parent Teacher Association, American
Association of University Women, Asian American Justice Center, the
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Human Rights Campaign and
the National Council of La Raza. Additionally the National Safe Schools
Partnership, strongly endorses the Safe Schools Improvement Act.
I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Safe Schools
Improvement Act. I believe that we must support this legislation to
ensure that all our children can learn in a safe and productive
environment.
______
By Mr. BEGICH:
S. 3740. A bill to supplement State jurisdiction in Alaska Native
villages with Federal and tribal resources to improve the quality of
life in rural Alaska while reducing domestic violence against Native
women and children and to reduce alcohol and drug abuse and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to address
issues of great concern to me and to all who care about public safety
in Alaska Native villages. Last week President Obama signed the Tribal
Law and Order bill into law. That legislation passed because Congress
recognized the great need to provide more support for the criminal
justice system and communities in Indian Country. While this law has
some important provisions that will benefit Alaska Native communities,
I believe the remoteness and other unique conditions of many Native
villages in my State compel us to do more. That is why I am introducing
the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2010.
My bill will establish a demonstration project for Alaska Native
tribes to allow tribes in Alaska to set up tribal courts, establish
tribal ordinances, and to impose sanctions on those people who violate
the ordinances. It would enhance current tribal authority, while
maintaining the State's primary role and responsibility in criminal
matters. Additionally, those communities selected to be part of the
demonstration project would be eligible for an Alaska Village Peace
Officer grant to serve those communities in a holistic manner.
Unfortunately, because of the vastness of Alaska, too many of our
Alaska Native villages lack any law enforcement. Too often, minor cases
involving alcohol and domestic abuse go unreported because the nearest
State Trooper resides in a hub community, located a long and expensive
airplane ride away. Frequently, harsh weather prevents the Troopers
from flying into a community even when the most heinous acts have
occurred. Approximately 71 villages have a sole unarmed Village Patrol
Safety officer, VPSO, who must be on duty 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. These hard-working
[[Page S6898]]
VPSOs are underpaid, and while communities try to provide some housing
and heating assistance, in places where fuel oil can cost as much as $8
a gallon, it can be difficult to sustain the funding for these public
servants.
As one who believes strongly in community involvement, I strongly
believe tribes in Alaska should have a role in their law enforcement
needs. This local control not only provides security for the
communities, but also encourages local acceptance of the judicial
system as a whole. With the changes in place that my bill would
require, residents of Alaska Native villages will see a system that
does more than just fly in after a tragedy has occurred.
Just recently communities in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta have
experienced an alarming suicide cluster. Unfortunately Alaska Native
communities have grown accustomed to alarming suicide rates, but in the
past two months there have been at least nine self-inflicted deaths in
these villages. Nick Tucker, an elder in Emmonak, recently wrote a
letter to the State of Alaska's rural affairs director to try to bring
attention to the issue. Part of his letter begged for the Governor to
call the legislature in session and said it is no longer acceptable for
them to wait for the Troopers because ``in the villages, they take
forever.'' Part of this continuing suicide cycle is the presence of
drugs and alcohol. Predators do not fear police action when they
bootleg alcohol or sell drugs in villages, because there is no police
presence. One can walk into a village, speak with an elder and that
person will tell you who is bootlegging alcohol.
These communities are full of rich heritage and culture, however many
have high unemployment due to the remoteness and lack of opportunity in
the village. Most economic development in Alaska happens in either the
metropolitan areas, or in very remote areas for resource extraction.
Many of the villages have unemployment rates above 20 percent. Alaska
Natives survival is highly dependent on the land. They subsist on game,
berries, and fish. However, as hunting and fishing stocks dwindle many
people are feeling disconnected from their heritage and have turned to
drugs and alcohol. Too many people in the villages feel isolated and
lack a connection, both figuratively and literally. Though educational
attainment in the last 40 years has increased dramatically, the dropout
rate in Alaska still hovers at 40 percent. Too many of our young men
and women have lost hope and are losing a sense of community.
We must give our communities the tools necessary to protect
themselves. Too often, we pour resources into urban areas, but become
stuck when we try to work toward solutions for our most remote
communities. We should no longer allow the answer from anyone to be
``we don't have the resources.'' Alaska Native villages are vibrant,
strong communities and we should do everything in our power to work
with these communities and answer their calls for help.
I encourage my colleagues to join me on this legislation, and ask for
the full Senate to consider and pass it to provide help to some of the
places in our country most in need.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 3744. A bill to establish Pinnacles National Park in the State of
California as a unit of the National Park System, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pinnacles
National Park Act.
This legislation would elevate the Pinnacles National Monument to a
National Park. The legislation would also rename the current Pinnacles
Wilderness as the Hain Wilderness after Schuyler Hain, an early
conservationist whose efforts led to the establishment of the Monument
in 1908.
The Pinnacles National Monument ascends out of the beautiful Gabilan
Mountains, east of central California's Salinas Valley. Established by
President Theodore Roosevelt, the monument protects the spectacular
remains of the Neenach Volcano. Colossal monoliths, sheer-walled
canyons and talus caves exhibit millions of years of volcanic evolution
and tectonic plate movement.
Originally 2500 acres, the monument has grown to encompass 26,000
acres of diverse California wildlands. These parklands represent one of
only 5 regions, or less than 2 percent of the world's surface area,
supporting a Mediterranean habitat. Less than five percent of the
world's Mediterranean habitat remains protected, so it is essential
that we preserve this special resource.
Mediterranean habitats provide a rare combination of cool wet
winters, hot dry summer days, and evening fog--supporting many plants
and animals found nowhere else in the world. One of the animals that
calls the Pinnacles home is the critically endangered California
condor. Recently, a condor hatched in the wild just outside the
monument's boundary--the first to do so in this country in at least 70
years.
The Pinnacles area, famously rendered by John Steinbach in ``Of Mice
and Men'' and ``East of Eden,'' is also an important part of
California's cultural heritage. The area has held significance for
several Native American tribes, early Spanish settlers, and Western
homesteaders. Today, the Pinnacles are a global destination for
naturalists and outdoor enthusiasts of all kinds, who are attracted by
the park's scenic trails, natural resources, and some of the most
unique rock-climbing in the world. The Pinnacles National Monument is
an important driver of the local tourist economy and jobs, and
elevating this site to a National Park will draw even more attention to
this incredible destination.
I have worked with Congressman Sam Farr to craft legislation that
will further protect this recreational treasure. It has strong support
from the surrounding communities and the California Wild Heritage
Campaign, a coalition of over 500 businesses and organizations.
I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing this diverse natural
and cultural resource by creating Pinnacles National Park.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN:
S. 3745. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act to require the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of low-income
States to use 95 percent of the national average nonmetropolitan median
income for purposes of determining the eligibility of communities in
the States for certain rural development funding; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Rural
Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2010. This legislation will help
rural communities have better access to the funding available through
the Rural Development programs administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, specifically the Rural Water and Wastewater Program and
Community Facility Program.
As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry, I am strongly concerned that communities in low-income states
such as my state of Arkansas have limited ability to qualify for grant
funding through certain Rural Development programs due to current non-
metropolitan median household income requirements. The structure we
have today creates barriers for many of our poorest rural communities
that are most in need. Some of these rural communities have median
household incomes well below the national average, yet they are
ineligible for any grant funding because USDA applies the State's non-
metropolitan median household income to funding formulas instead of the
national median household income.
This structure creates disparities for many low-income rural States.
For example, in Arkansas, a rural community with a median household
income greater than the State's non-metropolitan median household
income of $31,845 is ineligible for grant funding through the Rural
Water and Community Facility programs. Rural communities in Arkansas
who meet all of the other eligibility requirements for funding through
these programs are ineligible for grant funding simply because of their
low median income level. In fact, 45 States have a higher non-
metropolitan median household income level. The legislation I am
introducing today is designed to even the playing field for low-income
rural communities in Arkansas and several other States.
[[Page S6899]]
Forty-eight percent of my home State's population lives in a rural
community. The programs offered through USDA Rural Development are
vital to our efforts to meet basic needs and foster economic
development. Without the types of key infrastructure improvements that
can be made through these rural development programs, it will be
difficult for many of these communities to reach their full potential
and prosper.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill he
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3745
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 ``Rural Infrastructure
Improvement Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. MEDIAN INCOME REQUIREMENT ADJUSTMENT.
Section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1926) is amended by inserting after subsection
(b) the following:
``(c) Median Income Requirement Adjustment.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary applies a median income
requirement to communities for purposes of determining
eligibility for the community facilities programs and water,
waste disposal, and wastewater programs authorized under this
section and sections 306A, 306C, 306D, and 306E, in the case
of a State for which the State nonmetropolitan median income
is equal to or less than 90 percent of the national average
nonmetropolitan median income, the Secretary shall use an
amount equal to 95 percent of the national average
nonmetropolitan median income in applying the median income
requirement for any community in the State.
``(2) Termination of authority.--The authority provided by
paragraph (1) terminates on September 30, 2012''.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs.
Feinstein):
S. 3746. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to improve the
loan guarantee program of the Department of Energy under title XVII of
that Act; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills, S.
3746 and S. 3759, making improvements to the operation of the
Department of Energy's loan guarantee program. The first makes a number
of changes that will ease the administration of the program and allow
for quicker processing of applications within the Department. In
addition, the bill will add a fourth category to the subsidized loan
guarantee program created and funded in the American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act that would allow energy efficiency projects to gain access
to the program. This bill is substantially similar to a provision that
the House of Representatives passed last year as a portion of H.R. 2847
but which did not receive consideration in the Senate.
The second bill institutes a time limit on consideration by the
Office of Management and Budget of loan guarantee applications
submitted by the Secretary. If the Secretary submits a term sheet for
conditional commitment to OMB for review and comment, then OMB has 30
days to submit such comments. After 30 days the Secretary may issue a
conditional commitment on the guarantee, taking into account any
comments received from OMB, without further authorization from OMB.
This provision would not affect the currently used OMB-approved subsidy
cost model for loan guarantees or its application.
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. 3746
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCENTIVES FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES LOAN
GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
(a) Specific Appropriation or Contribution.--Section 1702
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Specific Appropriation or Contribution.--
``(1) In general.--No guarantee shall be made unless--
``(A) an appropriation for the cost of the guarantee has
been made;
``(B) the Secretary has received from the borrower a
payment in full for the cost of the guarantee and deposited
the payment into the Treasury; or
``(C) a combination of appropriations under subparagraph
(A) or payments from the borrower under subparagraph (B) has
been made that is sufficient to cover the cost of the
guarantee.
``(2) Limitation.--The source of payments received from a
borrower under subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) shall
not be a loan or other debt obligation that is made or
guaranteed by the Federal Government.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Credit Report.--If, in the opinion of the Secretary,
a third-party credit rating of the applicant or project is
not relevant to the determination of the credit risk of a
project, if the project costs are not projected to exceed
$100,000,000, and the applicant agrees to accept the credit
rating assigned to the applicant by the Secretary, the
Secretary may waive any otherwise applicable requirement
(including any requirement described in part 609 of title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations) to provide a third-party credit
report.
``(m) Direct Hire Authority.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding sections 3304 and
sections 3309 through 3318 of title 5, United States Code,
the head of the loan guarantee program under this title
(referred to in this subsection as the `Executive Director')
may, on a determination that there is a severe shortage of
candidates or a severe hiring need for particular positions
to carry out the functions of this title, recruit and
directly appoint highly qualified critical personnel with
specialized knowledge important to the function of the
programs under this title into the competitive service.
``(2) Exception.--The authority granted under paragraph (1)
shall not apply to positions in the excepted service or the
Senior Executive Service.
``(3) Requirements.--In exercising the authority granted
under paragraph (1), the Executive Director shall ensure that
any action taken by the Executive Director--
``(A) is consistent with the merit principles of section
2301 of title 5, United States Code; and
``(B) complies with the public notice requirements of
section 3327 of title 5, United States Code.
``(4) Sunset.--The authority provided under paragraph (1)
shall terminate on September 30, 2011.
``(n) Professional Advisors.--The Secretary may--
``(1) retain agents and legal and other professional
advisors in connection with guarantees and related activities
authorized under this title;
``(2) require applicants for and recipients of loan
guarantees to pay all fees and expenses of the agents and
advisors; and
``(3) notwithstanding any other provision of law, select
such advisors in such manner and using such procedures as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States and achieve the purposes of
this title.
``(o) Multiple Sites.--Notwithstanding any contrary
requirement (including any provision under part 609.12 of
title 10, Code of Federal Regulations) an eligible project
may be located on 2 or more non-contiguous sites in the
United States.''.
(b) Applications for Multiple Eligible Projects.--Section
1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16516) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Multiple Applications.--Notwithstanding any contrary
requirement (including any provision under part 609.3(a) of
title 10, Code of Federal Regulations), a project applicant
or sponsor of an eligible project may submit an application
for more than 1 eligible project under this section.''.
(c) Energy Efficiency Loan Guarantees.--Section 1705(a) of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16516(a)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Energy efficiency projects, including projects to
retrofit residential, commercial, and industrial buildings,
facilities, and equipment.''.
(d) Fees; Professional Advisors.--Section 136 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Fees.--Except as otherwise permitted under subsection
(i), administrative costs shall be not more than $100,000 or
10 basis points of the loan.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j) as subsections
(j) and (k), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (h) the end the
following:
``(i) Professional Advisors.--The Secretary may--
``(1) retain agents and legal and other professional
advisors in connection with guarantees and related activities
authorized under this section;
``(2) require applicants for and recipients of loan
guarantees to pay directly, or through the payment of fees to
the Secretary, all fees and expenses of the agents and
advisors; and
``(3) notwithstanding any other provision of law, select
such advisors in such manner and using such procedures as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate to protect the
[[Page S6900]]
interests of the United States and achieve the purposes of
this section.''.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 3747. A bill to provide for a reduction and limitation on the
total number of Federal employees, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reduce and
Cap the Federal Workforce Act. This is a simple straightforward bill
that would reduce the number of civilian federal employees--excluding
those serving in the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security--to
the pre-2009 numbers in each government agency through attrition. Once
this reduced number is reached, then each agency would cap the number
of employees at that level. Each hire would then have to be offset by
another employee leaving that agency.
It is not hard to locate illustrations where the Federal Government
is growing at an exceptionally fast pace. Looking at the number of
Government employees as a percentage of America's population, one
easily sees how we have increased the size of the government.
In 1815, the total population in America was 8.3 million people, yet
there were only 4,837 Federal Government employees. That represents
nearly \1/20\ of 1 percent of Americans who were Federal employees.
From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1
million to 1.2 million.
The Obama administration says the Government will grow to 2.15
million employees this year serving roughly 310 million Americans. That
is nearly 1 percent of the population, or put another way, is 20 times
the number of government employees than there were in 1815 and almost a
50 percent increase since 2008. The actual numbers are likely to be
much higher.
Some have estimated the newly enacted health care bill could add many
thousands of Federal employees--as many as 16,000 new Internal Revenue
Service employees alone. It has been reported that the recently enacted
financial regulatory bill will result in the hiring of at least one
thousand new federal government employees. It has been reported the SEC
will need to hire an additional 800 employees alone.
I am introducing this legislation in order to ensure that the size of
our federal government is reduced to the pre-2009 size and does not
expand thereafter. This legislation is supported by Americans for Tax
Reform, the American Conservative Union, and Americans for Limited
Government.
I believe we need a limited federal government and this legislation
is one way we can limit the size of the Government while decreasing
Government spending. Our Nation, children, and grandchildren cannot be
buried in debt created by an agenda to exponentially grow the size of
the Government. Enough is enough.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Burr, Mr. Reed, Mr. Ensign,
and Mr. Franken):
S. 3751. A bill to amend the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act
of 2005; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Stem
Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010 which
reauthorizes the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, P.L.
109-129, through the end of 2015. I am also grateful that Senators
Dodd, Burr, Reed, Ensign and Franken have joined me as sponsors of this
bipartisan bill.
Over the past few months, we have worked with the National Marrow
Donor Program, NMDP, and cord blood transplantation experts,
specifically Dr. Linda Kelley of the University of Utah and Dr. Joanne
Kurtzberg of Duke University. It is my strong hope that our bill is
considered by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions when the Congress returns in mid-September and is signed into
law before the end of the year.
Our legislation makes several small but important additions to the
existing program.
First, the bill reauthorizes both the C.W. Bill Young Cell
Transplantation Program, which is commonly referred to as the Program
and the National Cord Blood Inventory program, which is often called
the NCBI, for an additional 5 years through 2015.
The total authorization levels for both programs combined would be
$53 million in each of the 5 years, thus staying consistent with the
authorization level established in the original statute. Specifically,
the authorization level for the program would be $30 million in fiscal
years 2011 through 2014 and $33 million in fiscal year 2015. The
authorization levels for NCBI would be $23 million for fiscal years
2011 through 2014 and $20 million in fiscal year 2015.
Second, the original statute intended for cord blood banks to become
self-sufficient in the future. Five years ago, it was our intent that
cord blood banks would eventually be able to function and operate
without federal funding. In fact, the HELP Committee's August 31, 2005
report states the following on this important issue: ``The committee
anticipated that the funding authorized for establishing and
strengthening the cord blood unit inventory will be devoted primarily
to defraying the start-up expenses, including developing the expanded
inventory in an optimal fashion. While we feel that such activities
clearly have the potential to be self-supporting in time, we also
recognize that sufficient funding over an adequate period of time will
be necessary for these activities to realize their full potential. It
is the committee's expectation that the Secretary will closely
scrutinize all costs related to this legislation, so that tax dollars
are spent judiciously to achieve the maximum effect.''
Almost 5 years have passed since the original statute was signed into
law and cord blood banks are still dependent on Federal funding due to
the many obstacles surrounding cord blood collection and cord blood
storage. Therefore, our bill includes language to the contracting
section requiring qualified cord blood banks to develop an annual plan
and demonstrate ongoing measurable progress toward achieving self-
sufficiency. While I recognize and understand that cord blood donation
and collection is a new, challenging field of research, this
modification was extremely important to me to ensure that taxpayers'
precious dollars are spent prudently and that public cord blood banks
are actually doing what the drafters of the original law intended.
The contracting provisions of our bill also require cord blood banks
to provide a plan on how to increase cord blood collection, assist with
the establishment of new collection sites or contract with new
collection sites. Both the self-sufficiency requirements and the cord
blood collection requirements would apply to both new cord blood bank
applicants and existing cord blood banks extending their contracts.
Third, our bill also calls for the collection and maintenance of at
least 150,000 new units of high-quality cord blood to be made available
for transplantation through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation
Program. The original statute called for the collection of 150,000 new
units, and we believed that there needed to be some flexibility on the
total number of units collected.
Fourth, in order to ensure that the appropriate science is reflected
in this bill, the legislation modifies the definition of a first degree
relative as the sibling of an individual in need of a transplant.
According to scientists and researchers who specialize in cord blood
transplantation, the only immediate family members able to donate cord
blood are the siblings of a person in need of a transplant. The
original statute defined first degree relatives as parents and
siblings.
Fifth, the Program would support studies and demonstration projects
that would study increasing cord blood donation and collection from a
genetically diverse population, including exploring novel approaches or
incentives to expand the number of cord blood collection sites
partnering with federal cord blood banks.
Sixth, our bill extends the privacy protections included in the
original statute for cord blood transplant patients and donors to bone
marrow transplant patients and donors.
Finally, the legislation includes a study on cord blood donation and
collection by the General Accountability Office. The final report would
be submitted to the appropriate House and Senate Committees one year
after enactment of our bill.
[[Page S6901]]
I am proud of this legislation because it proves that bipartisanship
still exists in the United States Senate. This subject is near and dear
to my heart. When this legislation was signed into law in 2005, it
offered us a rare opportunity to make a difference in the lives of
those suffering from a serious illness or those who have family members
with illnesses requiring cord blood or bone marrow transplants. Back
then, our goal was to increase the number of bone marrow and cord blood
donors. Today, our goal continues to be increasing the number of bone
marrow and cord blood donations and passage of this legislation will
make it easier to do just that.
I will continue to do everything possible to provide transplant
patients with the best possible options by ensuring a strong future for
bone marrow and cord blood transplantation in this country. Patients in
need of a transplant deserve nothing less and passing this legislation
is the pathway to being successful in that endeavor.
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. 3751
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 ``Stem Cell Therapeutic and
Research Reauthorization Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC AND RESEARCH
ACT OF 2005.
(a) Cord Blood Inventory.--Section 2 of the Stem Cell
Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 274k note) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``at least'' before
``150,000'';
(2) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting ``at least'' before
``150,000'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``; and'' and inserting
``;'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) will provide a plan to increase cord blood unit
collections at collection sites that exist at the time of
application, assist with the establishment of new collection
sites, or contract with new collection sites;
``(4) will annually provide to the Secretary a plan for,
and demonstrate, ongoing measurable progress toward achieving
self-sufficiency of cord blood unit collection and banking
operations; and'';
(4) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``a period of at
least 10 years beginning on the last date on which the
recipient of a contract under this section receives Federal
funds under this section''; and
(ii) by striking the second sentence and inserting ``The
Secretary shall ensure that no Federal funds shall be
obligated under any such contract after the date that is 5
years after the date on which the contract is entered into,
except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3).'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
(I) by striking ``Subject to paragraph (1)(B), the'' and
inserting ``The''; and
(II) by striking ``3'' and inserting ``5'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) by inserting ``at least'' before ``150,000''; and
(II) by striking ``; and'' and inserting ``;'';
(iii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by inserting ``meeting the requirements under
subsection (d)'' after ``receive an application for a
contract under this section''; and
(II) by striking ``or the Secretary'' and all that follows
through the period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) the Secretary determines that the outstanding
inventory need cannot be met by the qualified cord blood
banks under contract under this section.''; and
(C) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Extension eligibility.--A qualified cord blood bank
shall be eligible for a 5-year extension of a contract
awarded under this section, as described in paragraph (2),
provided that the qualified cord blood bank--
``(A) demonstrates a superior ability to satisfy the
requirements described in subsection (b) and achieves the
overall goals for which the contract was awarded;
``(B) provides a plan for how the qualified cord blood bank
will increase cord blood unit collections at collection sites
that exist at the time of consideration for such extension of
a contract, assist with the establishment of new collection
sites, or contract with new collection sites; and
``(C) annually provides to the Secretary a plan for, and
demonstrates, ongoing measurable progress toward achieving
self-sufficiency of cord blood unit collection and banking
operations.'';
(5) in subsection (g)(4), by striking ``or parent''; and
(6) in subsection (h)--
(A) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out
the program under this section $23,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2011 through 2014 and $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.
Such funds so appropriated shall remain available until
expended.''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``in each of fiscal years
2007 through 2009'' and inserting ``for fiscal years 2011
through 2015''.
(b) National Program.--Section 379 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274k) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a)(6) and inserting the
following:
``(6) The Secretary, acting through the Advisory Council,
shall submit to Congress an annual report on the activities
carried out under this section.'';
(2) by striking subsection (d)(2)(D) and inserting the
following:
``(D) support studies and demonstration and outreach
projects for the purpose of increasing cord blood unit
donation and collection from a genetically diverse
population, including exploring novel approaches or
incentives, such as remote or other innovative technological
advances that could be used to collect cord blood units, to
expand the number of cord blood unit collection sites
partnering with cord blood banks that receive a contract
under the National Cord Blood Bank Inventory program under
section 2 of the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of
2005;''; and
(3) by striking subsection (f)(5)(A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) require the establishment of a system of strict
confidentiality to protect the identity and privacy of
patients and donors in accordance with Federal and State law;
and''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 379B of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274m) is amended by
striking ``$34,000,000'' and all that follows through the
period at the end, and inserting ``$30,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and $33,000,000 for fiscal
year 2015. Such funds so appropriated shall remain available
until expended.''.
(d) Report on Cord Blood Unit Donation and Collection.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives,
and the Secretary of Health and Human Services a report
reviewing studies, demonstration programs, and outreach
efforts for the purpose of increasing cord blood unit
donation and collection for the National Cord Blood Inventory
to ensure a high-quality and genetically diverse inventory of
cord blood units.
(2) Contents.--The report described in paragraph (1) shall
include a review of such studies, demonstration programs, and
outreach efforts under section 2 of the Stem Cell Therapeutic
and Research Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 274k note) (as amended by
this Act) and section 379 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 274k) (as amended by this Act), including--
(A) a description of the challenges and barriers to
expanding the number of cord blood unit collection sites,
including cost, the impact of regulatory and administrative
requirements, and the capacity of cord blood banks to
maintain high-quality units;
(B) remote or other innovative technological advances that
could be used to collect cord blood units;
(C) appropriate methods for improving provider education
about collecting cord blood units for the national inventory
and participation in such collection activities;
(D) estimates of the number of cord blood unit collection
sites necessary to meet the outstanding national inventory
need and the characteristics of such collection sites that
would help increase the genetic diversity and enhance the
quality of cord blood units collected;
(E) best practices for establishing and sustaining
partnerships for cord blood unit collection at medical
facilities with a high number of minority births;
(F) potential and proven incentives to encourage hospitals
to become cord blood unit collection sites and partner with
cord blood banks participating in the National Cord Blood
Inventory under section 2 of the Stem Cell Therapeutic and
Research Act of 2005 and to assist cord blood banks in
expanding the number of cord blood unit collection sites with
which such cord blood banks partner; and
(G) recommendations about methods cord blood banks and
collection sites could use to lower costs and improve
efficiency of cord blood unit collection without decreasing
the quality of the cord blood units collected.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, Senator
Reed, Senator Burr, Senator Ensign and Senator Franken in introducing
the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010, a
bill that will benefit some of the most gravely ill patients--those in
need of a
[[Page S6902]]
blood stem cell transplant. The bill we are introducing today
reauthorizes the vital work being done for patients as a result of the
Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005.
I first joined Senator Hatch more than seven years ago on legislation
to create a national network of cord blood banks and a cord blood
registry. Five years ago, when the Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee took up cord blood legislation, Senator Hatch and I,
working with many of our colleagues on and off the committee, expanded
the scope of our legislation to include a reauthorization of the
national bone marrow program and updated the cord blood provisions to
be consistent with the recommendations made by the Institute of
Medicine's report, ``Cord Blood: Establishing a National Hematopoietic
Stem Cell Bank Program.'' In the end, that legislation, the Stem Cell
Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, passed the senate unanimously.
Since then we have learned a lot of about adult stem cell
transplantation. There are currently twelve public cord blood banks
across the U.S. and cord blood cells account for 22 percent of all
transplants as of 2009. Among minorities, transplants using cord blood
as the cell source are even higher. As of 2005, survival rates for
transplants involving an unrelated donor are almost identical to those
of a related donor which represents a near doubling of the survival
rates for unrelated donor recipients over the past 15 years.
The bill we are introducing today builds on the success of the
National Cord Blood Inventory and the national bone marrow
transplantation program, making minor improvements to both. Among the
most critical changes to the law is the prioritization of the creation
of new cord blood collection sites so that we can increase the National
Cord Blood Inventory. The 2005 law set a goal of collecting and
maintaining 150,000 new units of high-quality cord blood.
Unfortunately, the inventory is well below that goal and the
transplantation needs of patients. In part, that is because the funding
has not kept pace with what was authorized by the 2005 law. While I
applaud President Obama for including additional funding for the
National Cord Blood Inventory and the national bone marrow
transplantation program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, I find it
regrettable that President Bush did not provide full funding for these
programs in any of his budgets, despite his vocal support for these
programs and adult stem cells generally.
In my own state of Connecticut, there are more than 128,000 donors
participating in the National Marrow Donor Program. There is some very
exciting work going on at Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital
involving marrow or cord blood transplantation. In fact, last May, I
had the privilege of meeting Ms. Teena Conquest, a bone marrow donor
from Middletown, Connecticut, and the recipient of her bone marrow,
Rebecca Christy, from Iowa. It was truly inspiring to hear their story
and how one woman's generosity saved another woman's life.
I am deeply disappointed that there are currently no cord blood
collection sites in the state of Connecticut through the National Cord
Blood Inventory program. Currently, more than 160 hospitals in the U.S.
have an agreement with a public cord blood bank through the National
Cord Blood Inventory program to perform collections for banks within
the National Marrow Donor Program network. While none of those
hospitals are in Connecticut, it is my strong hope that with this
reauthorization, we will be prioritizing the establishment of new cord
blood collection sites for the public program. I strongly encourage
hospitals in Connecticut who meet the criteria to become a cord blood
collection site and help increase the inventory of cord blood so that
patients in need can find a match.
As was the case for Ms. Conquest and Ms. Christy, the therapeutic
benefits of bone marrow are tremendous and well established. Bone
marrow transplants have been used for nearly half a century to treat
patients suffering from diseases such as leukemia, Hodgkin's Disease,
sickle cell anemia, and others. The National Marrow Donor Program,
NMDP, provides a single point of access, the National Registry, to
nearly 8 million volunteer bone marrow donors and 160,000 cord blood
units, including more than 28,000 federally funded units in the
National Cord Blood Inventory. The NMDP has helped countless patients
and families understand their disease and treatment options with
educational resources and one-on-one case management support.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me and my
colleagues in support of this important legislation. It is my strong
hope that we can move quickly to mark up this legislation in September
and shortly thereafter pass this bill in the Senate.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 3753. A bill to provide for the treatment and temporary financing
of short-time compensation programs, to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. REED. 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. 3753
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing
Unemployment Act of 2010''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Treatment of short-time compensation programs.
Sec. 3. Temporary financing of certain short-time compensation
payments.
Sec. 4. Temporary Federal short-time compensation.
Sec. 5. Grants for implementation of State short-time compensation
programs.
Sec. 6. Assistance and guidance in implementing programs.
Sec. 7. Reports.
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF SHORT-TIME COMPENSATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Definition.--
(1) In general.--Section 3306 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 3306) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(v) Short-time Compensation Program.--For purposes of
this chapter, the term `short-time compensation program'
means a program under which--
``(1) the participation of an employer is voluntary;
``(2) an employer reduces the number of hours worked by
employees in lieu of temporary layoffs;
``(3) such employees whose workweeks have been reduced by
at least 10 percent, and by not more than the percentage, if
any, that is determined by the State to be appropriate, are
eligible for unemployment compensation;
``(4) the amount of unemployment compensation payable to
any such employee is a pro rata portion of the unemployment
compensation which would be payable to the employee if such
employee were totally unemployed;
``(5) such employees are not expected to meet the
availability for work or work search test requirements while
collecting short-time compensation benefits, but are required
to be available for their normal workweek;
``(6) eligible employees may participate, as appropriate,
in an employer-sponsored training program to enhance job
skills if such program has been approved by the State agency;
``(7) the State agency shall require an employer to certify
that the employer will continue to provide health benefits
and retirement benefits under a defined benefit plan (as
defined in section 414(j)) and contributions under a defined
contribution plan (as defined in section 414(i)) to any
employee whose workweek is reduced under the program under
the same terms and conditions as though the workweek of such
employee had not been reduced;
``(8) the State agency shall require an employer (or an
employer's association which is party to a collective
bargaining agreement) to submit a written plan describing the
manner in which the requirements of this subsection will be
implemented and containing such other information as the
Secretary of Labor determines is appropriate;
``(9) in the case of employees represented by a union, the
appropriate official of the union has agreed to the terms of
the employer's written plan and implementation is consistent
with employer obligations under the National Labor Relations
Act; and
``(10) only such other provisions are included in the State
law as the Secretary of Labor determines appropriate for
purposes of a short-term compensation program.''.
(2) Effective date.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) Delay permitted.--In the case of a State that is
administering a short-time compensation program as of the
date of the
[[Page S6903]]
enactment of this Act and the State law cannot be
administered consistent with the amendment made by paragraph
(1), such amendment shall take effect on the earlier of--
(i) the date the State changes its State law in order to be
consistent with such amendment; or
(ii) the date that is 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Internal revenue code of 1986.--
(A) Subparagraph (E) of section 3304(a)(4) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(E) amounts may be withdrawn for the payment of short-
time compensation under a short-time compensation program (as
defined under section 3306(v));''.
(B) Subsection (f) of section 3306 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended--
(i) by striking paragraph (5) (relating to short-term
compensation) and inserting the following new paragraph:
``(5) amounts may be withdrawn for the payment of short-
time compensation under a short-time compensation program (as
defined in subsection (v)); and'', and
(ii) by redesignating paragraph (5) (relating to self-
employment assistance program) as paragraph (6).
(2) Social security act.--Section 303(a)(5) of the Social
Security Act is amended by striking ``the payment of short-
time compensation under a plan approved by the Secretary of
Labor'' and inserting ``the payment of short-time
compensation under a short-time compensation program (as
defined in section 3306(v) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986)''.
(3) Unemployment compensation amendments of 1992.--
Subsections (b) through (d) of section 401 of the
Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992 (26 U.S.C. 3304
note) are repealed.
SEC. 3. TEMPORARY FINANCING OF CERTAIN SHORT-TIME
COMPENSATION PAYMENTS.
(a) Payments to States.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), there shall be
paid to a State an amount equal to 100 percent of the amount
of short-time compensation paid under a short-time
compensation program (as defined in section 3306(v) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 2(a))
under the provisions of the State law. Notwithstanding
section 2(a)(2), a State administering a short-term
compensation program as of the date of the enactment of this
Act shall not be eligible to receive payments under this
section until the program administered by such State meets
the requirements of section 3306(v) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (as so added). Payments shall also be made for
additional State administrative expenses incurred (as
determined by the Secretary).
(2) Terms of payments.--Payments made to a State under
paragraph (1) shall be payable by way of reimbursement in
such amounts as the Secretary estimates the State will be
entitled to receive under this section for each calendar
month, reduced or increased, as the case may be, by any
amount by which the Secretary finds that the Secretary's
estimates for any prior calendar month were greater or less
than the amounts which should have been paid to the State.
Such estimates may be made on the basis of such statistical,
sampling, or other method as may be agreed upon by the
Secretary and the State agency of the State involved.
(3) Limitations on payments.--
(A) General payment limitations.--No payments shall be made
to a State under this section for benefits paid to an
individual by the State in excess of 26 weeks of benefits.
(B) Employer limitations.--No payments shall be made to a
State under this section for benefits paid to an individual
by the State under a short-time compensation program if such
individual is employed by an employer--
(i) whose workforce during the 3 months preceding the date
of the submission of the employer's short-time compensation
plan has been reduced by temporary layoffs of more than 20
percent; or
(ii) on a seasonal, temporary, or intermittent basis.
(b) Applicability.--Payments to a State under subsection
(a) shall be available for weeks of unemployment--
(1) beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this
Act; and
(2) ending on or before the date that is 3 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Funding and Certifications.--
(1) Funding.--There are appropriated, out of moneys in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be
necessary for purposes of carrying out this section.
(2) Certifications.--The Secretary shall from time to time
certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each
State the sums payable to such State under this section.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Labor.
(2) State; state agency; state law.--The terms ``State'',
``State agency'', and ``State law'' have the meanings given
those terms in section 205 of the Federal-State Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note).
SEC. 4. TEMPORARY FEDERAL SHORT-TIME COMPENSATION.
(a) Federal-State Agreements.--
(1) In general.--Any State which desires to do so may enter
into, and participate in, an agreement under this section
with the Secretary provided that such State's law does not
provide for the payment of short-time compensation under--
(A) a short-time compensation program (as defined in
section 3306(v) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
added by section 2(a)); or
(B) subsections (b) through (d) of section 401 of the
Unemployment Compensation Amendments Act of 1992, as in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(2) Ability to terminate.--Any State which is a party to an
agreement under this section may, upon providing 30 days'
written notice to the Secretary, terminate such agreement.
(b) Provisions of Federal-State Agreement.--
(1) In general.--Any agreement under this section shall
provide that the State agency of the State will make payments
of short-time compensation under a plan approved by the
State. Such plan shall provide that payments are made in
accordance with the requirements under section 3306(v) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 2(a).
(2) Limitations on plans.--
(A) General payment limitations.--A short-time compensation
plan approved by a State shall not permit the payment of
short-time compensation in excess of 26 weeks.
(B) Employer limitations.--A short-time compensation plan
approved by a State shall not provide payments to an
individual if such individual is employed by an employer--
(i) whose workforce during the 3 months preceding the date
of the submission of the employer's short-time compensation
plan has been reduced by temporary layoffs of more than 20
percent; or
(ii) on a seasonal, temporary, or intermittent basis.
(3) Employer payment of costs.--Any short-time compensation
plan entered into by an employer must provide that the
employer will pay the State an amount equal to one-half of
the amount of short-time compensation paid under such plan.
Such amount shall be deposited in the State's unemployment
fund and shall not be used for purposes of calculating an
employer's contribution rate under section 3303(a)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Payments to States.--
(1) In general.--There shall be paid to each State with an
agreement under this section an amount equal to--
(A) one-half of the amount of short-time compensation paid
to individuals by the State pursuant to such agreement; and
(B) any additional administrative expenses incurred by the
State by reason of such agreement (as determined by the
Secretary).
(2) Terms of payments.--Payments made to a State under
paragraph (1) shall be payable by way of reimbursement in
such amounts as the Secretary estimates the State will be
entitled to receive under this section for each calendar
month, reduced or increased, as the case may be, by any
amount by which the Secretary finds that the Secretary's
estimates for any prior calendar month were greater or less
than the amounts which should have been paid to the State.
Such estimates may be made on the basis of such statistical,
sampling, or other method as may be agreed upon by the
Secretary and the State agency of the State involved.
(3) Funding.--There are appropriated, out of moneys in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be
necessary for purposes of carrying out this section.
(4) Certifications.--The Secretary shall from time to time
certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each
State the sums payable to such State under this section.
(d) Applicability.--An agreement entered into under this
section shall apply to weeks of unemployment--
(1) beginning on or after the date on which such agreement
is entered into; and
(2) ending on or before the date that is 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Transition Rule.--If a State has entered into an
agreement under this section and subsequently enacts a State
law providing for the payment of short-time compensation
under a short-time compensation program (as defined in
section 3306(v) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
added by section 2(a)), the State shall not be eligible for
payments under this section for weeks of unemployment
beginning after the effective date of such State law.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Labor.
(2) State; state agency; state law.--The terms ``State'',
``State agency'', and ``State law'' have the meanings given
those terms in section 205 of the Federal-State Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note).
SEC. 5. GRANTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE SHORT-TIME
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award start-up grants
to State agencies--
(A) in States that enact short-time compensation programs
(as defined in section 3306(v) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as added by section 2(a)) on or after May 1,
[[Page S6904]]
2010, for the purpose of creating such programs; and
(B) that apply for such grants not later than September 30,
2012.
(2) Amount.--The amount of a grant awarded under paragraph
(1) shall be an amount determined by the Secretary based on
the costs of implementing a short-time compensation program.
(3) Only 1 grant per state.--A State agency is only
eligible to receive 1 grant under this section.
(b) Funding.--There are appropriated, out of moneys in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be
necessary for purposes of carrying out this section.
(c) Reporting.--The Secretary may establish reporting
requirements for State agencies receiving a grant under this
section in order to provide oversight of grant funds used by
States for the creation of the short-time compensation
programs.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Labor.
(2) State; state agency.--The terms ``State'' and ``State
agency'' have the meanings given those terms in section 205
of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note).
SEC. 6. ASSISTANCE AND GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS.
In order to assist States in establishing, qualifying, and
implementing short-time compensation programs (as defined in
section 3306(v) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
added by section 2(a)), the Secretary of Labor shall--
(1) develop model legislative language which may be used by
States in developing and enacting such programs and
periodically review and revise such model legislative
language;
(2) provide technical assistance and guidance in
developing, enacting, and implementing such programs;
(3) establish reporting requirements for States, including
reporting on--
(A) the number of averted layoffs;
(B) the number of participating companies and workers; and
(C) such other items as the Secretary of Labor determines
are appropriate.
SEC. 7. REPORTS.
(a) Initial Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall
submit to Congress and to the President a report or reports
on the implementation of the provisions of this Act,
including an analysis of the significant impediments to State
enactment and implementation of short-time compensation
programs (as defined in section 3306(v) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 2(a)).
(b) Subsequent Reports.--After the submission of the report
under subsection (a), the Secretary of Labor may submit such
additional reports on the implementation of short-time
compensation programs as the Secretary deems appropriate.
(c) Funding.--There are appropriated, out of any moneys in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Secretary of
Labor, $1,500,000 to carry out this section, to remain
available without fiscal year limitation.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 3756. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide
public safety providers an additional 10 megahertz of spectrum to
support a national, interoperable wireless broadband network and
authorize the Federal Communications Commission to hold incentive
auctions to provide funding to support such a network, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public
Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act.
Radio spectrum is a very valuable resource. It can grow our economy
and put new and innovative wireless services in the hands of consumers
and businesses. It can enhance our public safety by fostering
communications between first responders when the unthinkable occurs.
But it is also scarce. That is why we need a forward-thinking spectrum
policy that promotes smart use of our airwaves--and provides public
safety officials with the wireless resources they need to keep us safe.
The Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act will do just
that.
First, this legislation will provide the Federal Communications
Commission with the authority to hold incentive auctions. This will
help put valuable spectrum resources into the hands of companies that
can create innovative new services for American consumers and
businesses. This proposal will not require the return of spectrum from
existing commercial users, but will instead provide them with a
voluntary opportunity to realize a portion of auction revenues if they
wish to facilitate putting spectrum to new and productive uses.
Second, this legislation will provide public safety officials with an
additional 10 megahertz of spectrum known as the ``D-block.'' This
spectrum will support a national, interoperable wireless broadband
network that will help first responders protect us and keep us from
harm. I believe this is the right thing to do, because we owe those
courageous individuals who wear the shield the resources they need to
do their job. But more than that, by providing authority for incentive
auctions, this legislation will offer a revenue stream to assist public
safety with construction and maintenance of their network.
The American people deserve to have the best and most innovative uses
of wireless networks anywhere. They deserve to know our first
responders have access to the airwaves they need when tragedy strikes.
So I urge my colleagues to join me and support this important
legislation.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 3759. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to authorize
the Secretary of Energy to issue conditional commitments for loan
guarantees under certain circumstances; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. 3759
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONDITIONAL COMMITMENTS FOR LOAN GUARANTEES.
Section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
16512) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Deadline for OMB Review.--If the Secretary submits to
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a loan
guarantee for review and comment, the Secretary may, taking
into consideration comments made by the Director, issue a
conditional commitment to enter into the loan guarantee at
least 30 days subsequent to the submittal, without further
approval from the Director.''.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 3760. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
personal savings and retirement savings coverage by allowing employees
not covered by qualified retirement plans to save for retirement
through automatic IRAs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Automatic
IRA Act of 2010. When fully phased in, this bill will give nearly 42
million Americans nationwide an easy, effective way to take
responsibility for their financial futures and plan for a secure
retirement. The act incorporates the President's call, in his proposed
fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budgets, for Congress to enact
automatic IRA legislation.
Currently, about half of American workers have no opportunity to save
for retirement at work. In my home State of New Mexico, that share is
nearly 60 percent. Among those lacking coverage at work, only 1 in 10
contributes annually to an individual retirement account, IRA; the rest
generally make no dedicated savings for retirement. The result? An
alarming number of American workers are woefully unprepared for a
financially secure retirement. According to Boston College's Center for
Retirement Research, ``in 2009 half of today's households will not have
enough retirement income to maintain their pre-retirement standard of
living, even if they work to age 65, which is above the current average
retirement age.'' Especially in this period of economic uncertainty, it
is imperative that Congress focus on this retirement savings crisis. My
bill takes a commonsense approach to doing so.
Under this bill, most private sector employees working in
establishments of 10 or more employees who are not currently covered by
a workplace retirement plan would be given the opportunity to save
through regular payroll deposits that continue automatically, unless
they elect out. The savings will be deposited into the worker's
[[Page S6905]]
own IRA, which will be subject to the laws already in place governing
IRA accounts. Employers' administrative functions will be minimal. And
the arrangement is market oriented; other than the smallest of
accounts, automatic IRAs will be provided by the same banks, mutual
funds, insurance carriers, and other institutions that currently
provide them.
The automatic IRA approach is intended to help these households
overcome the barrier of inertia. It builds on the successful use--
encouraged by reforms I strongly supported the Pension Protection Act
of 2006--of automatic features in 401(k) plans that encourage employees
toward sensible decisions (while allowing them to make alternative
choices). We have already seen evidence that automatic 401(k)
enrollment can dramatically boost employee participation rates, from
seven in ten eligible workers to nine in ten. And in the 401(k)
context, the gains are even more striking for population groups least
likely to save, including women, Latino, and low-income workers.
Of the 75 million American workers who now are not covered by
employment-based retirement plans, an estimated 42 million would be
eligible to save and enroll under automatic IRA legislation. This
includes more than 250,000 in my home State of New Mexico. Many of
these individuals are familiar with IRAs. But when asked why they have
not used the existing program, about half point to issues relating to
setup and decisionmaking as the key barriers. The automatic IRA would
eliminate these barriers, and the Retirement Security Project estimates
that automatic IRA legislation could increase net national saving by
nearly $15 billion annually.
This is the third consecutive Congress in which I have introduced
automatic IRA legislation. The concept was initially developed by
scholars at the Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation. Indeed,
the automatic IRA concept has long enjoyed broad support across the
political spectrum. For instance, Martin Feldstein, chief economic
advisor to President Reagan, has described himself as ``a great
enthusiast of automatic enrollment IRAs'' who thinks ``as a policy,
it's a no-brainer'' and ``can't imagine why there would be any
significant opposition from political players on either side of the
aisle.''
Finally, this bill seeks to send a strong signal of preference for
employers to offer qualified retirement plans, like 401(k)s. Among
other features, it doubles the credit for employers that newly
establish qualified plans and it directs the Secretaries of the
Treasury and Labor to implement final regulations and establish a model
plan for Multiple Employer Plans.
I am grateful that my colleague on the Senate Finance Committee,
Senator Kerry, is joining me in introducing this bill. I am also
pleased to note the broad range of stakeholders supporting the
automatic IRA concept, including AARP; the American Society of Pension
Professionals & Actuaries; Aspen Institute's Initiative on Financial
Security; the Business and Professional Women's Foundation; CFED;
Consumers Union; FINRA; the Minority Business Roundtable; New Economics
for Women; the United States Black Chamber; the United States Women's
Chamber of Commerce; Women Impacting Public Policy; and the Women's
Institute for a Secure Retirement.
Ensuring easy access to a retirement account and the ability to have
part of their wages go directly from their paycheck into this account
are proven strategies to encourage retirement savings. I call on the
Senate to take up this bill in the fall and to include it in
legislation extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 3762. A bill to reinstate funds to the Federal Land Disposal
Account; read the first time.
Mr. REID. 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. 3762
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FEDERAL LAND DISPOSAL ACCOUNT.
Notwithstanding section 206(f) of the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act (43 U.S.C. 2305(f)), any balance
remaining in the Federal Land Disposal Account on July 24,
2010, shall be reinstated and available for expenditure in
accordance with section 206(b) of that Act (43 U.S.C.
2305(b)), to remain available until expended.
____________________