[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15301-15321]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 15302]]

  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 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

[[Page 15303]]

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--
       (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

[[Page 15304]]

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 
OpenTheGovernment.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 
     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

[[Page 15305]]

     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.
  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.

[[Page 15306]]

  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

[[Page 15307]]

     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 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

[[Page 15308]]

     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 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.

[[Page 15309]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 15310]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 15311]]

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.
  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:

[[Page 15312]]

       ``(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;
       (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

[[Page 15313]]

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 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

[[Page 15314]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 15315]]

       ``(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 
     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

[[Page 15316]]

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.
  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

[[Page 15317]]

     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 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.

[[Page 15318]]

  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 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.

[[Page 15319]]

       (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, 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

[[Page 15320]]

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 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

[[Page 15321]]

     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.

                          ____________________