A bill to establish within the Department of Education the Innovation Inspiration school grant program, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act. For years I have been supportive of moving this legislation forward. It not only underscores the importance of the fashion design industry to our economy but will ensure that new and innovative fashion designs are afforded proper copyright protection.

Throughout my service in the Senate, I have worked on a whole host of intellectual property-related initiatives. There is no doubt that legislating in this area is difficult. It is necessary, however, to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy and to continue our country's leadership in global innovation.

Make no mistake about it: piracy and counterfeiting are the new face of economic crime around the world, far exceeding traditional property crimes. These crimes are the very antitheses of creativity--crippling growth and stifling innovation in their wake.

Last Congress I worked closely with my Senate Judiciary Committee colleagues and others in passing the PRO-IP Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 13, 2008. There is no doubt the PRO-IP bill will ensure that resources are available to enforce intellectual property laws and coordinate the government's intellectual property policies.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010 which reauthorizes the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, P.L. 109-129, through the end of 2015. I am also grateful that Senators Dodd, Burr, Reed, Ensign and Franken have joined me as sponsors of this bipartisan bill.

Over the past few months, we have worked with the National Marrow Donor Program, NMDP, and cord blood transplantation experts, specifically Dr. Linda Kelley of the University of Utah and Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg of Duke University. It is my strong hope that our bill is considered by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions when the Congress returns in mid-September and is signed into law before the end of the year.

Our legislation makes several small but important additions to the existing program.

First, the bill reauthorizes both the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program, which is commonly referred to as the Program and the National Cord Blood Inventory program, which is often called the NCBI, for an additional 5 years through 2015.

The total authorization levels for both programs combined would be $53 million in each of the 5 years, thus staying consistent with the authorization level established in the original statute. Specifically, the authorization level for the program would be $30 million in fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and $33 million in fiscal year 2015. The authorization levels for NCBI would be $23 million for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and $20 million in fiscal year 2015.

Second, the original statute intended for cord blood banks to become self-sufficient in the future. Five years ago, it was our intent that cord blood banks would eventually be able to function and operate without federal funding. In fact, the HELP Committee's August 31, 2005 report states the following on this important issue: ``The committee anticipated that the funding authorized for establishing and strengthening the cord blood unit inventory will be devoted primarily to defraying the start-up expenses, including developing the expanded inventory in an optimal fashion. While we feel that such activities clearly have the potential to be self-supporting in time, we also recognize that sufficient funding over an adequate period of time will be necessary for these activities to realize their full potential. It is the committee's expectation that the Secretary will closely scrutinize all costs related to this legislation, so that tax dollars are spent judiciously to achieve the maximum effect.''

Almost 5 years have passed since the original statute was signed into law and cord blood banks are still dependent on Federal funding due to the many obstacles surrounding cord blood collection and cord blood storage. Therefore, our bill includes language to the contracting section requiring qualified cord blood banks to develop an annual plan and demonstrate ongoing measurable progress toward achieving self- sufficiency. While I recognize and understand that cord blood donation and collection is a new, challenging field of research, this modification was extremely important to me to ensure that taxpayers' precious dollars are spent prudently and that public cord blood banks are actually doing what the drafters of the original law intended.

The contracting provisions of our bill also require cord blood banks to provide a plan on how to increase cord blood collection, assist with the establishment of new collection sites or contract with new collection sites. Both the self-sufficiency requirements and the cord blood collection requirements would apply to both new cord blood bank applicants and existing cord blood banks extending their contracts.

Third, our bill also calls for the collection and maintenance of at least 150,000 new units of high-quality cord blood to be made available for transplantation through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. The original statute called for the collection of 150,000 new units, and we believed that there needed to be some flexibility on the total number of units collected.

Fourth, in order to ensure that the appropriate science is reflected in this bill, the legislation modifies the definition of a first degree relative as the sibling of an individual in need of a transplant. According to scientists and researchers who specialize in cord blood transplantation, the only immediate family members able to donate cord blood are the siblings of a person in need of a transplant. The original statute defined first degree relatives as parents and siblings.

Fifth, the Program would support studies and demonstration projects that would study increasing cord blood donation and collection from a genetically diverse population, including exploring novel approaches or incentives to expand the number of cord blood collection sites partnering with federal cord blood banks.

Sixth, our bill extends the privacy protections included in the original statute for cord blood transplant patients and donors to bone marrow transplant patients and donors.

Finally, the legislation includes a study on cord blood donation and collection by the General Accountability Office. The final report would be submitted to the appropriate House and Senate Committees one year after enactment of our bill.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, with the passage of the 2007 energy bill (EISA), Congress doubled the corn-based ethanol mandate despite mounting questions surrounding ethanol's compatibility with existing engines, its transportation and infrastructure needs, its economic sustainability, and numerous other issues. Then, as now, I argued it was just too early to significantly increase the mandate and that the fuels industry and engine manufacturers needed more time to adapt and catch up with the many developing challenges facing corn-based ethanol. From everything we have witnessed over the past 2\1/2\ years, I was right. These mandates allow no room for error in a fuels industry already constrained by tight credit, dwindling capacity, environmental regulation, and volatile market conditions.

The corn ethanol mandate has also led to consumer backlash in parts of the country. In my home state of Oklahoma, one convenience store chain experienced a 30 percent drop in fuel sales once they began selling fuel blended at E-10 levels. The consumers didn't want it. In 2008, the New York Times reported this growing consumer discontent from Oklahoma City:

Why Do You Put Alcohol in Your Tank? demands a large sign

outside one gas station here, which reassures drivers that it

sells only ``100% Gas.''

``No Corn in Our Gas,'' advertises another station nearby.

Along the highways of this sprawling prairie city, and in

other pockets of the country, a mutiny is growing against

energy policies that heavily support and subsidize the

blending of ethyl alcohol, or ethanol, into gasoline.

Many consumers complain that ethanol, which constitutes as

much as 10 percent of the fuel they buy in most states, hurts

gas mileage and chokes the engines of their boats and

motorcycles.

Despite this consumer backlash, corn advocates are today pushing Washington to require higher consumptions of ethanol. The most pressing issue facing corn ethanol is the so-called ``blend wall'' of 10 percent. EISA mandated 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2015. But here is the problem: Federal regulations require that a gallon of gasoline should contain no more than 10 percent ethanol. So there will soon be more corn ethanol production than the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline.

So what is the solution? Corn ethanol advocates have the wrong approach. Rather than rethink EISA's corn mandates, they are lobbying for higher, mid-level ethanol blends in gasoline--higher than E10. Sounds like a simple solution, except its consequences would be dire, with potential damage to agriculture, the environment, and engine equipment manufacturers.

Many on-road and non-road engines, vehicles, and equipment are not specifically designed to run on ethanol blends of E10, let alone blends as high as E15. The available evidence indicates that lawnmowers, chainsaws, snowmobiles, recreational boats, motorcycles, and non-flex- fuel cars and trucks produce higher evaporative and engine exhaust emissions using mid-level ethanol blends. Also, mid-level ethanol blends are more corrosive on certain metals and plastics used in many fuel systems, and cause many gasoline-powered engines to run hotter and at higher RPM levels. In turn, this results in adverse impacts on starting, durability, operation, performance, and operator safety, due to the degradation of critical components and safety devices.

The American Lung Association has noted that degradation of catalyst efficiency, caused by increasing the ethanol content in gasoline, ``can have a major impact on emissions.'' These higher blends of ethanol can also cause NOX emissions to increase up to 25 percent. In short, we need to be careful that the rapid ramp-up in ethanol use doesn't result in the degradation of our country's air quality.

And many consumers complain about decreased fuel efficiency. Corn Ethanol is 67 percent of the BTU content of gasoline. According to EPA, vehicles ``operating on E85 usually experience a 20-30 percent drop in miles per gallon due to ethanol's lower energy content.'' These results were seconded by a Consumer Reports study that found E85 resulted in a 27 percent drop in fuel efficiency.

In my home state of Oklahoma, ethanol's blendwall has eliminated consumer choice. Where consumers could once choose to purchase clear gas, the blendwall is now forcing motorists to buy E10. The fuel blenders and gas station owners have no option but to sell ethanol blended gasoline despite strong consumer demand for clear gas.

Today I am introducing a simple three-page bill that responds to the increasing call for more consumer choice in the ability to purchase ethanol-free gasoline. Simply put, my bill allows a State to opt out of the corn ethanol portions of the renewable fuel standard. To do so, a State must pass a bill, signed by the governor, stating its election to exercise this option. The opt-out would be recognized by the administrator of the EPA, who would then reduce the amount of the national corn ethanol mandate by the percentage amount of the State which chooses to opt out. The bill also provides for the generation of credits to hold harmless the refiners who would produce clear gasoline sold in an opt-out State.

This legislation would allow a State to opt out of only the corn ethanol mandate. It would not affect other portions of the renewable fuel standard such as the cellulosic or advanced biofuels volumetric requirements.

I believe Congress blundered in pushing too much corn ethanol too fast. This bill will merely allow for fuel producers to respond to market demands when and where consumers prefer clear gas. Right now they can't do that.