[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 145 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12401-S12407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 1961. A bill to extend and expand the Child Safety Pilot Program;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Extending the
Child Safety Pilot Program Act of 2005, along with my good friend
Senator Hatch.
At the outset, let me thank Senator Hatch and his staff for joining
with me in this effort. I can think of no stronger advocate for
children's safety than my friend from Utah, and I am so pleased to have
him as an original cosponsor of this bill.
When a mom drops her young son or daughter off at the local Boys &
Girls Club, when a dad brings his child to little league practice, or
when one of our kids is mentored by an older member of the community,
we hope and pray that they are going to be safe. They usually are, and
youth-serving organizations are constantly vetting new employees and
volunteers to ensure there's nothing in their background to indicate
that potential workers should not be around our kids.
But these groups can only do so much. They send information and
fingerprints on prospective workers to their State criminal
identification agencies, and that effort typically results in a
comprehensive search of criminal history information on file in the
State where the organization is established. But if the worker spent
time in another state, or if a State's records are not up to date,
kids' safety can be put in jeopardy.
The organization with the most complete set of national criminal
history information is the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
Division, in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Years ago, I was approached by
the Boys & Girls Clubs and others and asked whether there would be a
way for them to directly access CJIS' records and avoid the then-
cumbersome system requiring them to apply for these national background
checks through their States.
I looked into the issue and discovered that a patchwork of statutes
and regulations govern background checks at the State level. There are
over 1,200 State statutes concerning criminal record checks. In
different States, different agencies are authorized to perform
background checks for different types of organizations, distinct forms
and information are required, and the results are returned in various
formats that can be difficult to interpret. Youth-serving organizations
trying to do the right thing and keep the kids in their charge safe
were being forced to navigate an extremely cumbersome system.
Indeed, in 1998, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
Division performed an analysis of fingerprints submitted for civil
applicant purposes. CJIS found that the average transmission time from
the point of fingerprint to the State bureau was 51.0 days, and from
the State bureau to the FBI was another 66.6 days, for a total of 117.6
days from fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. The worst performing
jurisdiction took 544.8 days from
[[Page S12402]]
fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. In a survey conducted by the
National Mentoring Partnership, mentoring organizations waited an
average of 6 weeks for the results of a national criminal background
check to be returned. In a New York Times article published this past
August, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America's vice president of club
safety, Les Nichols, was quoted as saying that about a third of the
criminal records that Clubs' checks turned up were from states other
than the one where the applications were submitted. ``It can take as
long as 18 months to retrieve those records,'' Mr. Nichols said, ``and
that time lag works against us, particularly because we are in a
business where we have a lot of seasonal staff and volunteers.''
Not only was the national criminal history background check process
slow, but it was often too expensive to be useful to youth-serving
organizations. In 2000, I introduced comprehensive legislation designed
to plug these security holes. No action was taken on my National Child
Protection Improvement Act that year. The following year, I re-
introduced the bill as S. 1868. That bill cleared the Senate
unanimously but was never acted on by the House. It would have set up
an office in the Justice Department to coordinate background check
requests from youth-serving organizations, and would have required the
results of these checks to be forwarded from the FBI to the requesting
groups quickly and affordably.
Finally, in 2003's PROTECT Act, we were able to make some progress on
this critical issue. Along with Senator Hatch and Chairman
Sensenbrenner of the House Judiciary Committee, I authored section 108
of the PROTECT Act conference report. Section 108 of Public Law 108-21
established an 18-month pilot program for certain organizations to
obtain national criminal history background checks. When he signed the
PROTECT Act into law, the President noted ``this law creates important
pilot programs to help nonprofit organizations which deal with children
to obtain quick and complete criminal background information on
volunteers. Listen, mentoring programs are essential for our country,
and we must make sure they are safe for the children they serve.''
The Child Safety Pilot Program created in the PROTECT Act was
extended for another 12 months by a provision in last year's
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, but the initiative is
scheduled to expire at the end of January 2006. Although the Department
of Justice has yet to submit a status report on the Child Safety Pilot
Program, as required by law, data provided by groups using the program
demonstrate its effectiveness and the need for it to be extended.
At last check, over 10,000 background checks have been conducted
through the pilot program. In those performed checks, 7.5 percent of
all workers screened had an arrest or conviction in their record.
Crimes discovered were serious: rape, child sexual abuse, murder, and
domestic battery. Half of those individuals were not truthful in their
job application and instead stated they did not have a criminal record.
Over one-quarter, 28 percent, of applicants with a criminal record had
crimes from States other than where they were applying to work. In
other words, but for the existence of the Child Safety Pilot Program,
employers may not have known that their applicants had a criminal
record.
The bill Senator Hatch and I introduce today will extend the Child
Safety Pilot Program for an additional 30-month period. It will also
change the original program so that more youth-serving organizations
can participate, and will shorten the timeframe given to the FBI in
which to return the results of the background check. We are pleased
that our bill has been endorsed by the Boys & Girls Clubs of America,
the National Mentoring Partnership, and the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children.
I would like to thank those who have made this program such a
success. Specifically, Ernie Allen and his team at the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children have generously provided staff and
equipment and have served as a clearinghouse to process background
check requests. Robbie Callaway and Steve Salem of the Boys & Girls
Clubs of America originally came up with this idea, and have provided
tireless advocacy on its behalf. And Margo Pedroso of the National
Mentoring Partnership has been invaluable in making Members of Congress
and the general public aware of the need for an affordable, efficient
national criminal history background check system. Without her, this
program would never have been created.
I urge my colleagues to support the Child Safety Pilot Program Act,
and I look forward to its prompt consideration.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 1963. A bill to make miscellaneous improvements to trade
adjustment assistance; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act of 2005.
I want to begin with some simple facts about international trade. The
benefits of trade are vast in absolute terms, but so diffuse that
individuals are generally unaware of how much they personally gain from
trade. By contrast, the harms from trade, while small in absolute
terms, are localized and intense.
Research shows that, on average, a worker who loses his job due to
trade will make 17 percent less in his new job. The older the worker
and the lower his level of education, the larger the lifetime wage cut
he is likely to experience.
With statistics like these, is it any wonder that workers who believe
their jobs are at risk from international competition are skeptical
about trade? With increasing numbers of Americans feeling vulnerable in
the global economy--even though many of them will never lose their jobs
because of trade--the potential pool of trade skeptics is growing.
There is a solution.
In a June 2002 poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign
Relations and Harris Interactive, respondents were asked which of three
positions most closely reflects their views on international trade.
Nearly three quarters of those surveyed, 73 percent, agreed with this
statement: ``I favor free trade, and I believe that it is necessary for
the government to have programs to help workers who lose their jobs.''
Sixteen percent said they favored free trade and did not think it
necessary for the government to help those who lose their jobs. Nine
percent said they do not favor free trade.
The results were even more striking in a 1999 poll conducted by the
Program on International Policy and Attitudes at the University of
Maryland. In that poll, 87 percent of participants agreed with this
statement: ``I would favor more free trade, if I was confident that we
were making major efforts to educate and retrain Americans to be
competitive in the global economy.'' Only 11 percent disagreed.
If there is a more compelling case to be made for Trade Adjustment
Assistance, I do not know what it is.
For more than 40 years, TAA has been providing retraining, income
support, and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to
trade. Montana workers tell me that TAA has been a lifeline, making it
possible for them to gain new skills and start new careers rather than
merely survive a layoff.
In the Trade Act of 2002, I spearheaded the most comprehensive
expansion and overhaul of the TAA program since 1974. We expanded the
kinds of workers who are eligible for TAA benefits. We added new
benefits like wage insurance and the health coverage tax credit. We
also streamlined the application deadlines to get workers enrolled and
retraining sooner.
I am proud of this landmark legislation. It unified a splintered TAA
program to create a single, comprehensive set of benefits.
Like most successful legislation, however, it was the product of
compromise. While TAA was expanded to cover secondary workers, it was
not expanded to cover service workers. While we added new benefits, we
also added eligibility tests for those new benefits that have proven
burdensome and unduly restrictive in practice. While we made more
workers eligible for training, we did not provide training funds
adequate to serve those workers.
In order for TAA to truly meet the needs of displaced workers, it
needs to be a lot more user-friendly. This bill
[[Page S12403]]
accomplishes that goal by eliminating barriers to entry that, in
practice, defeat the purpose of TAA. The bill's goal is simple: to get
every trade-displaced worker who needs a new start into meaningful
training and back into the workforce at comparable wages.
The TAA Improvements Act makes the following changes to TAA:
First, it provides that all deadlines and time limits for applying
for benefits are suspended when workers are appealing the Department of
Labor's denial of a TAA eligibility petition. According to DOL
statistics, in 2004 DOL denied approximately 35 percent of the TAA
petitions on which it ruled. Among the TAA petition denials appealed to
the Court of International Trade in the past several years, the vast
majority have been reversed. Numerous judges on the Court have
expressed growing impatience with the Labor Department's propensity to
stick by denials for years until workers--ultimately vindicated through
protracted litigation--lose the ability to receive full benefits. This
bill rectifies the problem by allowing workers who successfully appeal
denials of their TAA petitions to receive the benefits to which they
are entitled regardless of intervening deadlines.
Second, the bill creates a TAA Petition Adviser within the Department
of Labor to assist workers and those who prepare TAA petitions on their
behalf. Most workers and employers who prepare TAA petitions have no
experience with the program and seldom have access to experienced
counsel. The petition form itself, while improved over prior versions,
provides little guidance on the kinds of factual information upon which
DOL bases eligibility determinations. As the Court of International
Trade has found on numerous occasions, the Department's practice is to
do little, if any, investigation beyond the facts presented on the
petition. Accordingly, if an inexperienced group of workers fails to
say ``the magic words'', their petition is likely to be turned down.
The new Petition Adviser would be responsible for assisting workers to
prepare petitions by advising them on the kinds of information that are
necessary to demonstrate TAA eligibility--eliminating much of the
guesswork that can turn applying for TAA into a game of roulette.
Sadly, not all employers make their best efforts to help their
displaced workers qualify for TAA. Employers who prepare TAA
applications for their workers may assign the task to Human Resources
staff, who may lack sufficient knowledge to provide the appropriate
information to the Labor Department. They sometimes provide inaccurate
or incomplete evidence that prevents DOL from certifying the workers.
The bill addresses this problem by requiring that all information
provided to DOL by the petitioning workers' employer be certified as to
its completeness and accuracy by counsel or by an officer of the
company. This requirement assures that petitions will receive high-
level management attention and, in the case of counsel, imposes an
external ethical check.
In the Trade Act of 2002, Congress had the wisdom to create a program
of wage insurance, called Alternative TAA. Unlike traditional TAA,
which requires a worker to remain unemployed until training is
completed, wage insurance creates an incentive for workers to return to
work sooner and train on the job. It does so by assuring the worker
that, if the new job pays less than the old one, he can receive a
subsidy equal up to half the wage differential up to $10,000 over two
years. This innovative program has the potential to facilitate the most
effective kind of training, reduce worker transition time, and reduce
the per-worker cost of adjustment assistance.
Experience under the Trade Act of 2002 indicates low participation in
this program, both because it is limited to workers over 50 and because
the steps a worker needs to take to choose wage insurance have proved
difficult to satisfy. This bill streamlines the application process for
alternative TAA and lowers the minimum age for participating workers
from 50 to 40--the average age of TAA participants.
The Trade Act of 2002 expanded TAA eligibility to include so-called
``shifts in production''--when a plant in the United States closes and
moves overseas. The law makes eligibility automatic when production
shifts to a country with which the United States has a free trade
agreement or a unilateral preference program. But when production
shifts to another country--such as China or India--workers must satisfy
additional criteria before they are eligible.
This limitation is one of the compromises that shaped the Trade Act
of 2002. But I have never thought it fair or equitable. A worker whose
plant moves overseas has the same adjustment needs no matter where the
plant relocated. The TAA Improvement Act eliminates this distinction,
making eligibility for TAA automatic for shifts in production to any
country. It also eliminates a similar provision that limits coverage of
certain secondary workers to trade with Canada and Mexico.
In a recent review of the TAA program, the Government Accountability
Office noted that inflexible training enrollment deadlines have made it
difficult for workers to make timely and informed decisions about their
training plans and career options. Experience has shown that the
deadlines we set may be too short in some cases. Community colleges,
the principal providers of TAA training services, often enroll students
only twice a year, making it difficult for some workers to enroll in
the courses they need within the applicable deadlines. Even the most
motivated among laid-off workers find it difficult to do the research
and soul-searching necessary to make informed and sensible choices
about retraining in the time provided. For these reasons, this bill
extends the training enrollment deadline by several weeks.
Perhaps the single most important problem facing the TAA program
today is the chronic shortage in training funds. Every year, there are
states that run out of training funds and are forced to ration
training. In some cases, states have even stopped workers from
enrolling, which can reduce the total TAA benefits the worker can
receive even if funds later become available. The Department of Labor
has wisely issued guidelines to states to help them better manage their
training resources. But the truth of the matter is that Congress has
failed to provide states with enough training funds to adequately serve
the number of people who qualify for retraining. Rather than cap
training spending each year at an arbitrary amount arrived at through
political negotiations, this bill sets the training budget with
reference to program enrollment and average per person training costs.
The bill also gives the Department of Labor flexibility to steer
workers into some less traditional but practical training options. Many
workers who go through the TAA program ultimately end up self-employed.
Under the Workforce Investment Act, a general retraining program for
dislocated workers, workers can participate in entrepreneurial training
that prepares them for self-employment. This bill extends the same
option to workers in the TAA program. More than 10 percent of TAA
participants are not native English speakers. Because English
proficiency is a prerequisite for most occupational training courses,
these workers are generally steered into English language classes and
tend to use up their training benefits before receiving occupational
training. Under WIA, the Department of Labor has recently begun
promoting ``integrated workforce training,'' which combines
occupational training with job-related English proficiency. My bill
allows the same kind of training to be provided under TAA.
For workers entering the TAA program, the most important service they
receive is guidance from case workers provided by the state. These case
workers help displaced workers learn about local career options, make
informed choices about training programs, prepare necessary paperwork
and meet deadlines for TAA income support and other benefits. They keep
workers from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous training
providers who prey on confused dislocated workers and make sure workers
know about all the benefits to which they are entitled.
Because TAA is a federal program delegated to the states, the federal
government provides the states with funding to meet the program's
administrative costs. According to a survey by the GAO, however, the
cost of providing case worker services far exceeds
[[Page S12404]]
the amount that the federal government provides. States must either
divert money from other training programs or skimp on the services they
provide to workers under TAA. The goal of TAA is to have workers make
sensible choices about training that will lead to successful new
careers. My bill makes that possible by requiring the federal
government to provide the states with adequate funds to meet these
critical administrative costs.
This legislation requires the Department of Labor to improve its data
collection and to disseminate more information about the operation of
the TAA program. Better and more accessible data will permit Congress
and the public to more accurately assess the program's successes and
failures and make it easier for workers to prepare successful
petitions.
Finally, this legislation makes some needed changes to the TAA for
Farmers program. For many years, Congress and the Labor Department
tried--unsuccessfully to shoehorn farmers into the traditional TAA
program. But the adjustment issues facing American farmers from global
competition are fundamentally different than those facing manufacturing
workers. In the Trade Act of 2002, we created TAA for Farmers by
modifying the eligibility criteria and benefits package to more closely
meet the needs of agricultural producers.
Congress dedicated $90 million annually to this program, with the
intention of helping farmers to become more competitive before losing
their farms. After several years in operation, however, much of the
money provided by Congress has not been spent. The legislation I am
introducing today fine tunes the eligibility criteria, based on
experience, to eliminate some of the pitfalls that have excluded some
crops from the program.
The Trade Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act is the fourth in a
series of bills I have recently introduced to improve and reform TAA.
The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Reorganization Act, S. 1308,
makes needed changes to the management structure of TAA for Firms at
the Department of Commerce. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for
Service Workers Act, S. 1309, extends TAA to the 80 percent of American
workers in the service sector. The Trade Adjustment Assistance for
Industries Act, S. 1444, simplifies the TAA petition process and ties
TAA more closely to displacements caused by specific trade agreements.
In the future, I plan to introduce additional legislation addressing
the TAA health coverage tax credit. HCTC is a critical new benefit
added to the TAA package in 2002. As with many new programs, the
implementation process for HCTC has been bumpy. Armed with several
years of experience and several objective studies of the program, the
time has come to start smoothing out those bumps by revisiting the
structure and operation of the HCTC. This further legislation should be
ready for introduction in the coming months.
Whenever I speak about the need to expand and improve TAA, the first
question I usually get is: how much will it cost? Clearly, my proposals
will add to the cost of the program and I will ask CBO to provide a
score. But the strong implication of this common question is that we
cannot afford to add to the cost of the TAA program. I think that is
the wrong starting point.
First, we need to put the cost of TAA in perspective. At present, TAA
costs around one billion dollars per year to operate. That is a cost of
less than $10 per American household per year. By contrast, a study by
the Institute for International Economics recently concluded that the
American economy is roughly $1 trillion per year better off thanks to
global integration, which comes to about $9,000 in extra income every
year for each American household. Looking at these figures, we should
be embarrassed at the paltry fraction of the economic gains from trade
that we are plowing back into adjusting and retraining our workforce.
The truth is, the United States as a country cannot afford not to
make these changes. We need to be putting more resources into worker
retraining. We need to make sure we do not marginalize an entire
generation of manufacturing workers.
Now more than ever, we have to prepare workers for the challenges of
the global market. The domestic auto industry faces unprecedented
challenges to remain competitive in today's world. In October alone, a
major auto parts supplier filed for bankruptcy, General Motors slashed
wages and legacy benefits, and the Ford Motor Company announced
substantial layoffs. Thousands of specialized workers will be displaced
and have to start over.
At the same time, I continue to read warnings of an impending labor
shortage--even in the manufacturing sector. Baby boomers will soon
begin retiring in large numbers. Our educational system is not turning
out enough new workers with the skills our employers need to succeed in
global competition. I have seen estimates of a shortage of 20 million
workers by 2020--with the most severe shortages in the most skilled
jobs.
Economists estimate that increasing the education level of American
workers by one year would increase productivity by 8.5 percent in
manufacturing and 12.7 percent in nonmanufacturing industries. Is
expanding TAA too high a price to pay to address the coming labor
shortage and to achieve productivity gains on this order? I certainly
do not think so.
Experts with a wide range of views on issues surrounding trade and
competitiveness agree that, if our nation is to thrive in the global
economy of the 21st century, we must expand our worker adjustment
program. From Jagdish Bagwati to Tom Friedman, from Alan Greenspan to
the AFL-CIO--there is near universal agreement on this point. I believe
the legislation I have introduced today and over the past weeks creates
a strong platform to build on and I will work to see these bills
enacted into law.
But trade adjustment for workers alone cannot prepare America for the
competitive challenges ahead. We must aggressively pursue our interests
through the trade agreements we negotiate with other countries, and we
must enforce them just as aggressively. Recently I laid out my vision
for closer congressional oversight of trade enforcement by the United
States Trade Representative. I intend to introdue legislation to
address the need for better, more aggressive enforcement of our trade
agreements. Finally, I believe that our global competitiveness strategy
must go beyond trade negotiations. Over the course of several months, I
have highlighted many opportunities to enhance our global
competitiveness in areas such as healthcare, energy, education, and
savings. We must prepare the American people to take full advantage of
these opportunities and many more.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1963
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 ``Trade
Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
Sec. 101. Calculation of separation tolled during litigation.
Sec. 102. Establishment of Trade Adjustment Assistance Advisor.
Sec. 103. Certification of submissions.
Sec. 104. Revision of eligibility criteria.
Sec. 105. Training.
Sec. 106. Funding for administrative costs.
Sec. 107. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE II--DATA COLLECTION
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Data collection; study; information to workers.
Sec. 203. Determinations by the Secretary of Labor.
TITLE III--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS
Sec. 301. Clarification of marketing year and other provisions.
Sec. 302. Eligibility.
TITLE I--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
SEC. 101. CALCULATION OF SEPARATION TOLLED DURING LITIGATION.
Section 233 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Special Rule for Calculating Separation.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any
period during which a judicial or administrative appeal is
pending with respect to the denial by the Secretary of a
petition under section 223 shall
[[Page S12405]]
not be counted for purposes of calculating the period of
separation under subsection (a)(2) and an adversely affected
worker that would otherwise be entitled to a trade
readjustment allowance shall not be denied such allowance
because of such appeal.''.
SEC. 102. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
ADVISOR.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 2 of title II of
the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after section
221, the following new section:
``SEC. 221A. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
ADVISOR.
``(a) In General.--There is established in the Department
of Labor an office to be known as the `Office of the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Advisor'. The Office shall be headed by
a Director, who shall be responsible for providing assistance
and advice to any person or entity described in section
221(a)(1) desiring to file a petition for certification of
eligibility under section 221.
``(b) Technical Assistance.--The Director shall coordinate
with each agency responsible for providing adjustment
assistance under this chapter or chapter 6 and shall provide
technical and legal assistance and advice to enable persons
or entities described in section 221(a)(1) to prepare and
file petitions for certification under section 221.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents for title
II of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 221, the following:
``Sec. 221A. Establishment of Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance
Advisor.''.
SEC. 103. CERTIFICATION OF SUBMISSIONS.
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Certification of Submissions.--If an employer submits
a petition on behalf of a group of workers pursuant to
section 221(a)(1) or if the Secretary requests evidence or
information from an employer in order to make a determination
under this section, the accuracy and completeness of any
evidence or information submitted by the employer shall be
certified by the employer's legal counsel or by an officer of
the employer.''.
SEC. 104. REVISION OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.
(a) Shifts in Production.--Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 (U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)(B)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) there has been a shift in production by such workers'
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced by such
firm or subdivision.''.
(b) Wage Insurance.--
(1) In general.--Section 246(a)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2318(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Eligibility.--A worker in a group that the Secretary
has certified as eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under section 223 may elect to receive benefits under the
alternative trade adjustment assistance program if the
worker--
``(A) obtains reemployment not more than 26 weeks after the
date of separation from the adversely affected employment;
``(B) is at least 40 years of age;
``(C) earns not more than $50,000 a year in wages from
reemployment;
``(D) is employed on a full-time basis as defined by State
law in the State in which the worker is employed; and
``(E) does not return to the employment from which the
worker was separated.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 246(a)(2) of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2318(a)(2)) are amended by
striking ``paragraph (3)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)''
each place it appears.
(B) Section 246(b)(2) of such Act is amended by striking
``subsection (a)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(3)''.
(c) Downstream Workers.--Section 222(c)(3) of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 (U.S.C. 2272(c)(3)) is amended by striking ``, if
the certification of eligibility'' and all that follows to
the end period.
SEC. 105. TRAINING.
(a) Modification of Enrollment Deadlines.--Section
231(a)(5)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2291(a)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking ``16th week'' and
inserting ``26th week''; and
(2) in subclause (II), by striking ``8th week'' and
inserting ``20th week''.
(b) Extension of Allowance to Accommodate Training.--
Section 233 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Extension of Allowance.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, a trade readjustment allowance may
be paid to a worker for a number of additional weeks equal to
the number of weeks the worker's enrollment in training was
delayed beyond the deadline applicable under section
231(a)(5)(A)(ii) pursuant to a waiver granted under section
231(c)(1)(E).''.
(c) Funding for Training.--Section 236(a) of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2296(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``Upon such approval'' and
all that follows to the end; and
(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2)(A) Upon approval of a training program under
paragraph (l), and subject to the limitations imposed by this
section, an adversely affected worker covered by a
certification issued under section 223 shall be eligible to
have payment of the costs of that training, including any
costs of an approved training program incurred by a worker
before a certification was issued under section 223, made on
behalf of the worker by the Secretary directly or through a
voucher system.
``(B) Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment
of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act of 2005,
the Secretary shall develop and submit to Congress for
approval a formula that provides workers with an individual
entitlement for training costs to be administered pursuant to
sections 239 and 240. The formula shall take into account--
``(i) the number of workers enrolled in trade adjustment
assistance;
``(ii) the duration of the assistance;
``(iii) the anticipated training costs for workers; and
``(iv) any other factors the Secretary deems appropriate.
``(C) Until such time as Congress approves the formula, the
total amount of payments that may be made under subparagraph
(A) for any fiscal year shall not exceed fifty percent of the
amount of trade readjustment allowances paid to workers
during that fiscal year.''.
(d) Approved Training Programs.--
(1) In general.--Section 236(a)(5) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2296(a)(5)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (H);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) integrated workforce training;
``(G) entrepreneurial training; and''.
(2) Definition.--Section 247 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2319) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(18) The term `integrated workforce training' means
training that integrates occupational skills training with
English language acquisition.''.
SEC. 106. FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
Section 241 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2313) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Funds provided by the Secretary to a State to cover
administrative costs associated with the performance of a
State's responsibilities under section 239 shall be
sufficient to cover all costs of the State associated with
operating the trade adjustment assistance program, including
case worker costs.''.
SEC. 107. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 245(a) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2317(a)) is amended by striking ``2007'' and
inserting ``2012''.
(b) Firms.--Section 256(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$16,000,000'' and inserting
``$32,000,000''; and
(2) by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2012''.
(c) Farmers.--Section 298(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2401g(a)) is amended by striking ``2007'' and
inserting ``2012''.
TITLE II--DATA COLLECTION
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Trade Adjustment
Assistance Accountability Act''.
SEC. 202. DATA COLLECTION; STUDY; INFORMATION TO WORKERS.
(a) Data Collection; Evaluations.--Subchapter C of chapter
2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by
inserting after section 249, the following new section:
``SEC. 250. DATA COLLECTION; EVALUATIONS; REPORTS.
``(a) Data Collection.--The Secretary shall, pursuant to
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, collect any data
necessary to meet the requirements of this chapter.
``(b) Performance Evaluations.--The Secretary shall
establish an effective performance measuring system to
evaluate the following:
``(1) Program performance.--A comparison of the trade
adjustment assistance program before and after the effective
date of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002
with respect to--
``(A) the number of workers certified and the number of
workers actually participating in the trade adjustment
assistance program;
``(B) the time for processing petitions;
``(C) the number of training waivers granted;
``(D) the coordination of programs under this chapter with
programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2801 et seq.);
``(E) the effectiveness of individual training providers in
providing appropriate information and training;
``(F) the extent to which States have designed and
implemented health care coverage options under title II of
the Trade Act of 2002, including any difficulties States have
encountered in carrying out the provisions of title II;
``(G) how Federal, State, and local officials are
implementing the trade adjustment assistance program to
ensure that all eligible individuals receive benefits,
including providing outreach, rapid response, and other
activities; and
``(H) any other data necessary to evaluate how individual
States are implementing the requirements of this chapter.
``(2) Program participation.--The effectiveness of the
program relating to--
[[Page S12406]]
``(A) the number of workers receiving benefits and the type
of benefits being received both before and after the
effective date of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act
of 2002;
``(B) the number of workers enrolled in, and the duration
of, training by major types of training both before and after
the effective date of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform
Act of 2002;
``(C) earnings history of workers that reflects wages
before separation and wages in any job obtained after
receiving benefits under this Act;
``(D) reemployment rates and sectors in which dislocated
workers have been employed;
``(E) the cause of dislocation identified in each petition
that resulted in a certification under this chapter; and
``(F) the number of petitions filed and workers certified
in each congressional district of the United States.
``(c) State Participation.--The Secretary shall ensure, to
the extent practicable, through oversight and effective
internal control measures the following:
``(1) State participation.--Participation by each State in
the performance measurement system established under
subsection (b) and shall provide incentives for States to
supplement employment and wage data obtained through the use
of unemployment insurance wage records.
``(2) Monitoring.--Monitoring by each State of internal
control measures with respect to performance measurement data
collected by each State.
``(3) Response.--The quality and speed of the rapid
response provided by each State under section 134(a)(2)(A) of
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C.
2864(a)(2)(A)).
``(d) Reports.--
``(1) Reports by the secretary.--
``(A) Initial report.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Accountability Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives a report that--
``(i) describes the performance measurement system
established under subsection (b);
``(ii) includes analysis of data collected through the
system established under subsection (b); and
``(iii) provides recommendations for program improvements.
``(B) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date
the report is submitted under subparagraph (A), and annually
thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives and release to the public a
report that includes the information collected under clause
(ii) of subparagraph (A).
``(2) State reports.--Pursuant to regulations prescribed by
the Secretary, each State shall submit to the Secretary a
report that details its participation in the programs
established under this chapter, and that contains the data
necessary to allow the Secretary to submit the report
required under paragraph (1).
``(3) Publication.--The Secretary shall make available to
each State, to Congress, and to the public, the data gathered
and evaluated through the performance measurement system
established under subsection (b).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Coordination.--Section 281 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2392) is amended by striking ``Departments of Labor
and Commerce'' and inserting ``Departments of Labor,
Commerce, and Agriculture''.
(2) Trade monitoring system.--Section 282 of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2393) is amended by striking ``The
Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor'' and
inserting ``The Secretaries of Commerce, Labor, and
Agriculture''.
(3) Table of contents.--The table of contents for title II
of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 249, the following new item:
``Sec. 250. Data collection; evaluations; reports.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 203. DETERMINATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR.
Section 223(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273(c))
is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Publication of Determinations.--Upon reaching a
determination on a petition, the Secretary shall--
``(1) promptly publish a summary of the determination in
the Federal Register together with the Secretary's reasons
for making such determination; and
``(2) make the full text of the determination available to
the public on the Internet website of the Department of Labor
with full-text searchability.''.
TITLE III--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS
SEC. 301. CLARIFICATION OF MARKETING YEAR AND OTHER
PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 291(5) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2401(5)) is amended by inserting before the end
period the following: ``, or in the case of an agricultural
commodity that has no officially designated marketing year,
in a 12-month period for which the petitioner provides
written request''.
(b) Fishermen.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
for purposes of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) fishermen who harvest wild
stock shall be eligible for adjustment assistance to the same
extent and in the same manner as a group of workers under
such chapter 2.
SEC. 302. ELIGIBILITY.
(a) In General.--Section 292(c)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2401a(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``80 percent''
and inserting ``90 percent''.
(b) Net Farm Income.--Section 296(a)(1)(C) of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2401e(a)(1)(C)) is amended by inserting
before the end period the following: ``or the producer had no
positive net farm income for the 2 most recent consecutive
years in which no adjustment assistance was received by the
producer under this chapter''.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 964. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the determination and deduction of interest on qualified education
loans; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, every year, the cost of higher education
and vocational education increases dramatically. College tuition and
fees have been rising more rapidly than household income over the past
two decades. The divergence is particularly pronounced for low-income
households. The sad result is that with every year more students and
families are forced to decide whether they can afford higher education
while knowing their choice is limited by price. It is imperative that
Congress work to make higher education more accessible to all.
Our Nation must make a solid commitment to ensure that every
individual has the opportunity to pursue higher education, and our
policies should reflect this commitment. Education has always been the
great equalizer in our society that provides every American the same
opportunity to succeed. That is why today I, along with Senator
Schumer, am introducing legislation that would provide for a simpler,
more borrower-friendly method for reporting and deducting capitalized
interest and origination fees in connection with qualified education
loans.
In May 2004, the Treasury Department issued final regulations with
respect to the student loan interest deduction under the tax code.
Among other things, these Treasury regulations provide that the
``original issue discount rules'' (OID) shall apply for purposes of
students claiming this deduction. In particular, they would apply to
the portion of the student loan that relates to federally mandated
student loan origination fees and the capitalized interest that does
not accrue on the loan while the student attends school (i.e., the
government essentially pays this interest for the student on the loan
during the years the student attends school).
OID rules are complicated and confusing. In general, these rules
attempt to prevent taxpayers from claiming inflated interest deductions
stemming from debt obligations. When a borrower issues a debt
obligation at a discount, that is the note's face amount exceeds the
amount that the lender advances to the borrower, the amount of the
discount represents additional interest on the obligation. The OID
rules reflect Congress' attempt to square the tax treatment of this
unstated or disguised interest into conformity with economic reality.
The OID rules, then, ``limit'' a borrower's tax deduction because
whereas the tax code generally permits borrowers to deduct the interest
they pay on debt obligations, such as student loans, the tax code
generally prevents borrowers from deducting any OID they might pay on
such debt.
For example, assume that a corporation issues thirty-year bonds with
a face value of $1,000 each and, according to their terms, paying 10
percent interest each year. Assume, though, that the corporation
actually sells these bonds to investors for $850 because the 10 percent
interest rate is below market rates. Under these facts, there is $150,
$1,000 - $850, that the corporation essentially is ``re-classifying''
as interest that it will pay to the investor; that is, the investors
would not be satisfied with a 10 percent return upon giving the
corporation $1,000 so that the corporation essentially treats a portion
of the principle, $150, as interest.
[[Page S12407]]
The tax code classifies this $150 as OID. The $150 of OID serves the
same function as the stated annual interest of $100, 10 percent of
$1,000. As such, the $150 of OID is an additional cost to the
corporation in borrowing $850 from the investor, and it is additional
compensation that the corporation pays to the lender for lending that
amount. The only differences to the parties are that the corporation is
not required to pay the OID of $150 until the bond matures and that the
investor does not receive the discount in cash until then, unless the
bond is sold in the interim.
As I noted earlier, the OID rules prevent borrowers from deducting
the entire amount of ``interest'' they pay to a borrower on a loan.
Specifically, in the previous example, although the parties treat the
loan principle as being $850, the application of the OID rules treats
the loan as $1,000, which is significant because it means the IRS
classifies the $150 of OID as not being interest. In turn, the borrower
cannot deduct this $150 payment to the borrower because it is a return
of principle on the loan rather than interest.
Consequently, applying OID rules to student loans would have several
negative effects. First, with respect to students, they would not be
able to deduct the entire amount of ``interest'' they pay to their
lender. In general, whereas the tax code generally permits students to
deduct student loan interest, subject to certain limitations, it does
not permit taxpayers to deduct OID. The Treasury regulations, then,
will reduce the cash flow of students who are repaying student loans by
limiting their student loan interest deduction.
In addition, applying the OID rules will have an enormous impact on
the compliance burden. Indeed, the interaction of the OID rules and the
loan provisions of the Higher Education Act greatly magnifies the
complexity of rules that lenders must follow. As such, lenders and
servicers will be forced to create accounting systems, at enormous
expenses that ultimately will be passed on to student borrowers, to
enable them to track and report the origination fees and capitalized
interest in accordance with the OID rules. Furthermore, given that
there is no track record of applying the OID rules to student lenders,
there is no guarantee that they can preform these tasks accurately.
Congress enacted the OID rules to prevent taxpayers, mostly large
corporations, from altering the terms of loan agreements to claim
inflated interest deduction. Clearly, applying them to student loans is
unreasonable and frankly unintended.
To remedy this problem, my legislation would permit lenders to
account for the OID treatment of student loans under the ``immediate
accrual method, which colloquially is referred to as the ``bucket
method.'' Under this approach, the origination fee would accrue as soon
as it is charged to or paid by the borrower, and capitalized interest
would accrue under the terms of the promissory note. Accrued
origination fee and capitalized interest would go into a ``bucket'' as
soon as they accrue, until such time as the borrower begins to make
payments on the loan. Amounts in the ``bucket'' would be applied
against principal payments until the bucket is empty. Capitalized
interest and origination fees would be reported to and deductible by
the eligible taxpayer in the year in which they are paid.
My legislation would, as I stated, provide for a simpler, more
borrower-friendly method for reporting and deducting capitalized
interest and origination fees in connection with qualified education
loans. Consequently, it would not reduce the need to engage in the
burdensome task of calculating the OID on loans, and the student
borrowers would be able to deduct more of the interest they pay.
This bill is good policy and common sense. Senator Schumer and I look
forward to working with Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Ranking
Member Baucus in seeking swift action to resolve this issue.
____________________