A bill to include the county of Mohave, in the State of Arizona, as an affected area for purposes of making claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to reform the Capital Construction Fund to address major changes in the Nation's fisheries and to allow the Nation's fishers to have access to needed funds, to prevent over-fishing and to help create jobs.

The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, program was originally developed at a time when American fishes were having a hard time competing with highly efficient foreign fishing vessels--modern boats that often harvested US fishery resources within sight of our own shores. The initial idea behind the CCF Program was to enable US fishers to accumulate the funds necessary to develop a modern fishing fleet by allowing them to deposit a portion of their fishing-related earnings into a CCF savings account on a tax-deferred basis. Under the CCF program, monies subsequently withdrawn from the CCF accounts would remain tax free as long as they were invested in new or rebuilt fishing vessels. At the same time, any unauthorized withdrawals from CCF accounts were subject to severe interest and other penalties.

The program was a success--the CCF program helped the U.S. industry build a modern state-of-the-art fishing fleet. Unfortunately, that fleet has now become overcapitalized--a problem that has been exacerbated as managers have become more and more concerned about potential overfishing and have begun to reduce the amount of fish that they allow fishers to catch each year. As a result, the U.S. commercial fishing fleet now has more harvesting capacity than the U.S. fishery resource can sustainably support. The problem now is that the monies that remain on deposit in CCF accounts represent a potential for further overcapitalization at a time when less capitalization is needed. Yet the CCF regulations currently penalize withdrawals made for anything other than a bigger or better boat.

The issue now is what to do about the money that remains ``stranded'' in existing CCF accounts. Ironically, just as the current generation of fishers is getting ready to retire, the program puts heavy penalties on them if they take money out of their CCF accounts without using it for anything other than to further capitalize an already overcapitalized fleet.

The resulting situation is problematic for the fishers, the industry and the resource. That's why I am introducing legislation today along with my colleague Senator Murkowski--to address the problem of stranded capital still on deposit in various CCF accounts and to relieve the pressure to increase further capitalization of the fishing fleet. My legislation will enable CCF fund-holders to make a one-time withdrawal from their CCF accounts without requiring them to re-invest it in the fishing industry. Instead, they will be required to pay the taxes due on the monies withdrawn, but without having to pay interest or other penalties on such withdrawals. Those funds would be freed up for other purposes, including starting a new business and finding other ways to support and create jobs. An income-averaging formula would be applied to the withdrawals so as to avoid an excessive tax rate on the one-time withdrawal. The fishers taking advantage of such an opportunity to take money out of their CCF accounts penalty free would then be required to close their CCF accounts and would be prohibited from further participation in the program. This is a win-win-win situation. The fisher gets to take the money out of his CCF without having to pay penalties and interest, but still pays the taxes when due; the Government gets taxes on the withdrawals; and the resource and the fishers who remain in the fishery avoid further capitalization of an already over-capitalized industry.

I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski, the fishing community and the bill's other supporters to

advance this legislation to the President's desk.

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

Mr. President, last August, California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor, his wife, 13 year old daughter, and brother-in-law were killed in a tragic car accident that shocked the community of San Diego and the nation.

Their vehicle, a rental Lexus ES350, reached speeds of 120 mph as the family desperately called 911 in vain for help. This tragedy should not have occurred, and sadly, it is just one of many examples across California and the country of accidents involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles.

These accidents raise serious questions about the effectiveness of the recalls and whether Toyota and federal regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, took appropriate and timely action to protect the public.

At the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the Toyota recalls this past March, I called attention to reports that former NHTSA employees now employed by Toyota worked to limit Toyota's recall. In fact, Toyota's own internal documents stated that the company had achieved a ``win'' by ``negotiating an equipment recall'' on the Camry and Lexus ES vehicles that saved Toyota $100 million. It is a shocking example of a company counting profit wins at the expense of the public's health and safety.

The revolving door that exists between government regulators at NHTSA and the auto industry is unacceptable, and it puts consumers at risk. In fact, the Washington Post reported that as many as 33 former NHTSA and Department of Transportation, DOT, employees continue to work on vehicle recalls and safety compliance, capacities that deal directly with NHTSA's oversight authority over the industry.

That is why I am introducing the Motor Vehicle Safety Integrity Employment Act, to end the revolving door that exists between our vehicle safety regulatory agency--NHTSA--and the auto industry.

My bill prohibits NHTSA employees from working for auto manufacturers for three years in any job that involves written or oral communication with NHTSA, representing or advising a manufacturer with respect to motor vehicle safety, or assisting a manufacturer with responding to a request for information from NHTSA.

This restriction applies to high ranking NHTSA officials, as well as any individual whose responsibilities during the last 12 months at NHTSA included administrative, managerial, legal, supervisory, or senior technical responsibility for any motor vehicle safety-related program.

My legislation provides penalties for individuals and manufacturers who violate the law. Manufacturers are subject to fines not less than $100,000 and the amount equal to 90 percent annual compensation paid to that employee.

Finally, our bill requires the Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive study of DOT's policies related to post-employment restrictions for employees who handle motor vehicle safety related work beyond NHTSA at DOT, and DOT employees who handle all safety related work across all transportation modes. My legislation gives DOT the authority to take appropriate action as warranted.

We need to ensure that consumer safety is not compromised by cozy relationships between government regulators and industry. I am proud to introduce this bill to protect the public and look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about a bill that Senator Baucus and I have introduced today. It's called the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010.

The purpose of our bill is to help Haiti recover from the devastation it suffered in the massive earthquake that struck the country in January.

How we respond to natural disasters says a lot about ourselves, whether it's flooding in Iowa or an earthquake in Haiti.

The idea behind the bill is simple. First, we extend current trade preferences for Haiti through fiscal year 2020, to provide more certainty for companies doing business either in Haiti or with Haitian partners.

Second, we grant additional duty-free access to the U.S. market for targeted

categories of textile and apparel products. That will help to draw more investment into Haiti's economy and thereby promote long-term job creation, economic development, and political stability.

Our bill is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise. It is the product of 3 months of collaborative negotiations among the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees and with representatives of the U.S. textile industry and the Haitians themselves.

We also reached out to members of Congress who have constituent textile and apparel interests, to ensure that their concerns were addressed.

Our ability to reach agreement on the bill is a testament to the good will and good faith of all those involved in our negotiations.

The result reflects a careful balancing of interests, including Haiti's interest in spurring more investment in its economy, the interests of our trading partners in Central America in maintaining existing trade relationships, and our own domestic textile interests.

We took special care to address the sensitivities of our domestic producers.

In fact, I have a letter here from the two leading U.S. textile industry organizations. Their letter expresses support for our bill and encourages the Senate to pass the bill in an expeditious manner by unanimous consent.

Finally, I want to make special mention of my colleagues from states with textile interests, and to thank them for their constructive input in developing this legislation.

Without their engagement and support, we would not have arrived at the compromise bill that is being introduced today in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

This is a balanced bill that addresses an urgent priority in the Western Hemisphere.

I ask my colleagues to give the bill their unanimous support when it comes before the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, by adding Mohave County, AZ, to the list of counties eligible for downwinder compensation. A similar proposal was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Trent Franks. I'm hopeful this bill will help close a painful chapter for those Arizonans who were arguably the most affected by nuclear weapons testing during the Cold War.

In 1990, Congress enacted the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to compensate victims or their survivors who suffered certain illnesses caused by fallout exposure ``down wind'' of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the 1940's and lasting into the 1960's. Among various requirements, compensation eligibility is limited to certain affected counties which are specifically listed in the law. Astonishingly, despite its close proximity to the Nevada Test Site, the original RECA law and its subsequent amendments never listed Mohave County proper as an affected area. I believe the people of Mohave County deserve to see righted this unjust policy which has obstructed their ability to qualify for compensation.

I understand that several of my colleagues have proposed similar RECA amendments based on data suggesting that their home states were also ``down wind'' of nuclear weapons testing. In addition, my colleague, Senator Tom Udall, has introduced a far reaching legislative proposal to vastly expand the RECA program. I would hope that as these various RECA proposals advance through the legislative process, Congress gives thorough consideration to an April 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, that assessed, among other things, whether additional geographic areas should be added to the RECA program. The NAS study revealed a much wider area of radioactive fallout then originally identified when the RECA law was first written. The report also recommended replacing the geographic area criteria with a new science- based process for determining compensation eligibility, a method similar to what's used in the Radiation Exposed-Veterans Compensation Act and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. I believe it is worthwhile

for policy makers to consider the recommendations of the NAS report.

In the meantime and until a comprehensive overhaul of RECA is developed, I will work within the parameters of the existing RECA law in my efforts to ensure that the people of Mohave County are treated fairly in this matter. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, by adding Mohave County, AZ, to the list of counties eligible for downwinder compensation. A similar proposal was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Trent Franks. I'm hopeful this bill will help close a painful chapter for those Arizonans who were arguably the most affected by nuclear weapons testing during the Cold War.

In 1990, Congress enacted the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to compensate victims or their survivors who suffered certain illnesses caused by fallout exposure ``down wind'' of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the 1940's and lasting into the 1960's. Among various requirements, compensation eligibility is limited to certain affected counties which are specifically listed in the law. Astonishingly, despite its close proximity to the Nevada Test Site, the original RECA law and its subsequent amendments never listed Mohave County proper as an affected area. I believe the people of Mohave County deserve to see righted this unjust policy which has obstructed their ability to qualify for compensation.

I understand that several of my colleagues have proposed similar RECA amendments based on data suggesting that their home states were also ``down wind'' of nuclear weapons testing. In addition, my colleague, Senator Tom Udall, has introduced a far reaching legislative proposal to vastly expand the RECA program. I would hope that as these various RECA proposals advance through the legislative process, Congress gives thorough consideration to an April 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, that assessed, among other things, whether additional geographic areas should be added to the RECA program. The NAS study revealed a much wider area of radioactive fallout then originally identified when the RECA law was first written. The report also recommended replacing the geographic area criteria with a new science- based process for determining compensation eligibility, a method similar to what's used in the Radiation Exposed-Veterans Compensation Act and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. I believe it is worthwhile

for policy makers to consider the recommendations of the NAS report.

In the meantime and until a comprehensive overhaul of RECA is developed, I will work within the parameters of the existing RECA law in my efforts to ensure that the people of Mohave County are treated fairly in this matter. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.