[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2039-S2069]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations for job 
     preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy 
     efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and 
     State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Collins-Nelson (NE)) amendment No. 570), in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the 
leaders or their designees, with the final 10 minutes for the two 
leaders.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, in each of the last 3 months, more than 
half a million mothers and fathers came home to tell their families 
that they had lost their jobs.
  In each of the last 3 months, more than half a million breadwinners 
came to terms with the news that they were no longer gainfully 
employed.
  In each of the last 3 months, more than half a million Americans 
suddenly had to make do with much less.
  Bad as that news is, the year ahead looks no better. Job losses have 
accelerated to a rate not seen in nearly three decades. And economists 
warn that other shoes are bound to drop.
  These are times that frighten even seasoned managers. These are 
circumstances that concern even bullish economists.
  The history of the 1920s and 1930s teaches us that we must act. The 
history of the Great Depression teaches us the costs of delay.
  We must act to replace some of the trillions of dollars in demand 
that the private sector lacks. We must act to support those who, 
through no fault of their own, have been thrown onto the rolls of the 
unemployed. We must act to prevent the economy from spiraling deeper 
into recession.
  The road before us is clear. We must pass the economic recovery and 
reinvestment legislation before us today. We must speedily resolve our 
differences with the House of Representatives. And we must get this 
bill to the President for signature without delay.
  The bill before us would create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. The fate 
of millions of mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and 
husbands depends on what we do here today.
  Every generation must face its own challenge. Responding to this 
economic emergency is ours. Let us not be found wanting.
  Let us pass this bill and ensure that millions more mothers and 
fathers will not have to come home to tell their families that they 
have lost their jobs.
  Let us pass this bill to ensure that millions more breadwinners will 
not have to come to terms with unemployment.
  And let us pass this bill and rise to the economic challenge of our 
generation.
  I don't know who the manager is on the other side, but I assume the 
Senator from Texas has more than enough authority to speak. I suggest 
she seek recognition and ask for whatever time she desires.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, is there time allocated to each 
side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time until noon is equally 
divided.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise with hope that my colleagues 
will not waive the Budget Act point of order on this bill and to speak 
against passage of the legislation.
  Sometimes one has to talk about process when dealing with something 
as important and as large as the bill before us. A fair process would 
have allowed input from both Republicans and Democrats, and would have 
written the bill in committee rather than trying to write the bill on 
the Senate floor. I am still concerned about a $1 trillion expenditure. 
When we have an 800-page bill, we are spending about $1 billion per 
page. Yet I don't believe we have a consensus about the right way to be 
spending $1 trillion; $1 billion per page in this bill.
  The important thing we must do for the future is to look at all of 
the expenditures we are making. It is important for us to look at the 
trillion dollars we spent on stimulation last year which did nothing to 
help the economy. Now we have another trillion dollars coming down the 
pike to shore up financial institutions. We have $1 trillion in 
spending before us. We already have a $10.6 trillion debt. It is time 
to step back and say: a trillion dollars here and a trillion dollars 
there, we are talking about real money. The great Everett Dirksen 
talked about the ``real money'' of a billion dollars, and now we are at 
a trillion.
  It is time to pause and say to the American people: We are going to 
look at what needs to be done before we spend another dollar, much less 
$1 trillion.
  I believe 100 of us would say we need a stimulus package. It is how 
we spend the money that is in disagreement. Right now the bill before 
us is one-third tax cuts and two-thirds spending. Even the tax cuts are 
not going to help create jobs or keep people in their homes, which 
should be our major focus. The tax cuts are similar to the ones we did 
last year, which every economist agrees did not work because we didn't 
see a stimulus. We didn't see an increase in buying. Instead, the 
economy continued to go steadily downhill. The payroll tax that is 
dribbled out at $20 or $30 per paycheck is not going to make people 
feel confident to spend money which, in turn, creates the jobs.
  I believe we should have tax cuts that are targeted to making people 
spend their money. We have had the converter box coupons that will go 
to offset the cost of the digital transition. You get a coupon in the 
mail. You take it into a dealer that is selling the boxes. It offsets 
the cost immediately. How about a tax cut that is in the form of a 
coupon that can only be redeemed if you spend money in certain areas, 
such as home improvement, weatherization, where you buy things that 
create a market so we won't see retailers or manufacturers having to 
lay people off, as we have seen in the last few weeks? Why not a coupon 
for expenditures that will ensure that the money is spent for job-
creating activities? Why not a tax cut to employers for hiring people? 
That would be direct. That would say: If you will hire people, we will 
give you a tax credit. Employers would understand that. That is an 
incentive. Five hundred dollars in payroll taxes dribbled out will not 
give that confidence. We have the history of last year to show it.
  Let's talk about the spending. I think we can spend wisely to create 
jobs. The Republicans are not against spending. We just want to 
separate spending that is going to create jobs versus spending that 
people might like that might be good programs but are not going to 
create jobs. That is the division we have now.
  The spending in this new amendment is better than the original bill. 
They said they cut about $100 billion, but when you add in the 
amendments already in the bill, it is about $50 billion. And some of 
what they cut out was the right amount they should have cut out. It was 
the right types of projects to cut out. I will give them that. I think 
if we had had a more collaborative process from the beginning, we could 
cut out about $200 billion that would not be creating jobs, and we 
could put it into a stimulus that would.
  The kind of stimulus we should be targeting is money that we are 
going to have to spend anyway, say, over the next 5 years. Let me take, 
for example, military construction. In military construction, the 
Department of Defense

[[Page S2040]]

has a 5-year plan. We know what the 5-year plan is. In normal times, we 
would take 1 year at a time. The Department of Defense will put its 
highest priorities in the first year and then the second year will be 
next and then the third and fourth and fifth. But if we had a 
stimulative package, we would take that 5-year plan, and we would put 
it into 3 years so the spending would be upfront, and I have an 
amendment that will do that.
  It would create jobs in America, and it would be spending we know we 
are going to do anyway. That spending would create jobs from money we 
are going to spend anyway. So in the last 2 years, we can start going 
back to normal, if the economy has picked up and people are spending 
and we have a lower unemployment rate. We would be able to say: Well, 
we have already done our military construction spending. We do not need 
to spend that money in those last 2 years and we can start trying to 
come toward a balanced budget again.
  We have to start whittling down that $10.6 trillion debt. But, 
instead, we are going in the opposite direction, adding to that $10.6 
trillion debt already on the books.
  So I think there are some things we could agree to do. But this bill 
has not gone through the processes that would allow that input. My 
amendment has been pending since last week. It has been filed. But no 
action has been taken on it because we are not allowed to have the 
action, and we did not have the action in committee that would have 
allowed amendments.
  I believe we could have made some headway on military construction. 
The same for highways. I agree with the highway spending in the bill. I 
think we should have more in that direction because it is money we are 
going to have to spend eventually; move it up to the front. They are 
American jobs. That meets the test.
  I am very concerned that some of the spending in this bill--in the 
hundreds of millions and billions of dollars--is the kind of spending 
that is going to increase. It is going to increase payments the people 
are then going to come to expect, and we are not going to be able to 
come back to normalization, even when we have normalization, and we are 
going to keep adding to this debt.
  I hope my colleagues will pause and realize that for $1 trillion, we 
ought to do better for the future generations of our country because if 
our foreign investors in U.S. start beginning to think it is a risk to 
invest in the United States because we have no means to pay them back, 
two things can happen, and both of them are bad. One is they stop 
buying the debt. Then what are we going to do? The second is, they buy 
the debt but at what rate? They start raising the interest rates 
because the risk is greater. That will increase the economic woes we 
are now experiencing. Neither of those scenarios is a good one.
  I hope our colleagues will see we are on a road that in the long term 
is not the right road for our country. I respect that everyone is 
trying to do what is right.
  I know my colleagues on the Democratic side are trying to do what 
they think is right. I know the President is. I know the Republicans 
are too. We are in disagreement because we have not had the ability to 
fully come together in a way that will allow give and take, not just to 
have a bill that is laid before us where we are trying to amend here, 
amend there, without any cohesion in what we want to be the final 
result that would be a collaborative process. But what we have done is 
not, and at $1 trillion I think we need to do it right.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, is there a time limit on the speaking 
time at this time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has been yielded 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, thank you very much. Then I will get 
right to it. I have a lot to say in support of this bill.
  Let me start off by saying we have inherited a terrible mess, but the 
Senate is taking a major step forward to turn the country around by 
passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  By standing with President Obama, we stand for America, to create 
jobs for people who have lost them and to help those who have jobs keep 
them.
  This bill is about jobs, jobs, jobs. Through the rough and tumble of 
the legislative process, I do believe the Senate has found a sensible 
center. I compliment all of both sides of the aisle who chose to work 
with each other to accomplish this.
  This bill balances spending on the public investments and targeted 
tax credits that create jobs without exacerbating the Federal deficit.
  There is much to commend us about the spending bill. The focus on 
physical infrastructure is absolutely crucial to my own State of 
Maryland. If one takes something that is not very jazzy to talk about, 
such as sewers and water grants, I can only bring to the Senate's 
attention that this stimulus would bring $123 million to Maryland for 
these projects. But if Governor O'Malley were here, he would say: Thank 
God. If the people of Montgomery County, Prince Georges County, and 
Baltimore city were here, they would say: Cheers.
  Over the weekend, we had a terrible water main break in Maryland, in 
Baltimore. It went through Madison Street, near one of our most famous 
Catholic Churches. That church runs a school by the Jesuits, which 
focuses on giving a Jesuit prep school education practically free to 
poor boys, helping them to find their way. It closed not because of a 
lack of funds but because of a water break.
  Iggy's, one of our most delicious pizza parlors, was flooded with 
water not with business because of the water main break.
  Most recently, a big water main break occurred on River Road in 
Montgomery County. There was a dashing rescue by the brave people, 
first responders, of the Montgomery County rescue team, snatching 
people from waters that cascaded through like it was a Maryland 
``Niagara Falls.'' We have the money and the will to pay for the daring 
rescue, but we want to fix essentially what was a tsunami, a local 
tsunami in Montgomery County. Every time we do this, you have to have 
jobs for the people who will actually build the water and sewer 
programs.
  I could take you on a tour throughout Maryland. But what we are doing 
is creating jobs, improving the environment and public safety and 
public health. I could go item after item on these spending issues. 
Education would be one of the others which is very important.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act creates jobs by investing 
in our infrastructure. It fixes aging physical infrastructure, like 
roads, bridges, and water systems.
  Water mains are aging. Roadways are turning into rivers. Small 
businesses have to shut their doors. Hospitals can't take care of the 
sick.
  A recent water main break in Baltimore closed St. Ignatius, a school 
that provides a Jesuit education for poor kids. It closed Iggy's pizza 
parlor, a local Baltimore landmark. It was shut down after the water 
main break. The owner is not sure when he can reopen his doors.
  The stimulus provides $123 million for Maryland water and sewer 
projects. The formula funding to the States is to make low-interest 
loans to localities and utilities. This means local governments won't 
have to raise rates or cut services.
  But not all jobs require a shovel to be ready to go. Some need 
microscopes and telescopes. High-tech jobs like maritime charting help 
keep Maryland's economy afloat.
  There is $80 million to update nautical charts. There is a backlog of 
20,000 square miles. Some nautical charts for the bay have not been 
updated in decades. The channels have changed naturally. So have the 
boats that go down the channels. Ships are bigger and weigh more.
  We need accurate charts to make sure boats don't run aground, halting 
the flow of goods in Baltimore Harbor. It could cause an environmental 
mess and costly clean-up. Maryland can't afford a maritime accident.
  It makes major investments in education so families and local school 
districts can help special needs children.

[[Page S2041]]

  By giving money to the Governor to fill budget gaps in State aid, 
Prince George's County won't have to consolidate 12 schools, increase 
class size, or cut 900 positions in central administration.
  By providing funding for Early Head Start, officials in Baltimore 
City can start serving the 95 percent--7,600--of low-income infants who 
are eligible but do not receive nutritional, health, and education 
services due to a lack of funding.
  By providing a surge in title I dollars, Carroll County won't have to 
cut 33 teaching positions that otherwise would be slashed because of 
tight budgets.
  It provides a social safety net that helps distressed families. It 
helps with food stamps and nutrition for seniors. It supports Meals on 
Wheels so seniors stay in their communities and age in place. Last 
year, Meals on Wheels of Maryland delivered 780,000 meals to almost 
3,000 seniors.
  Putting food in people's mouths, about 317,000 Marylanders rely on 
food stamps each month.
  It expands Medicaid so States can continue to cover those already on 
Medicaid and expand the program to cover new individuals. About 854,000 
children and adults rely on Medicaid in Maryland. For families of three 
who make about $52,000 this means elderly won't get dropped from 
nursing homes and children will have health care.
  It invests in the techno infrastructure, like broadband to expand 
small businesses. Rural Maryland will be able to sell agricultural 
products or crafts and antiques on e-Bay, running e-based businesses 
out of their homes. Or if they lose a job, they can look for a new job 
online. And telecommuting is an option, so they may not have to move to 
a city to be near a good job.
  And it has targeted tax breaks to help families and small businesses, 
like expanding the child tax credit, helping at least 100,000 poor 
children in Maryland. It eases the ability to qualify for the 
refundable child tax credit, and provides up to an additional $2,000 
for a family with two children making less than $30,000.
  Last week we learned that 598,000 people lost their jobs in January. 
This bill is a victory for America. This bill stimulates the economy 
today and lays the groundwork for a stronger economy tomorrow.
  In addition to what was done the other night and what will pass in 
this stimulus--and I intend to vote for this stimulus--I am so 
heartened my automobile amendment is included in this bill. It makes 
interest payments on car loans and State sales or excise car tax 
deductible for new cars that would be purchased this year.
  What does it do? It actually gets people in the showroom. It does 
what Senator Hutchison talked about. I got 71 votes: 41 Democrats and 
30 Republicans. What does it do? It saves jobs because it gets people 
in the showroom to buy a car; and that means for the people who sell 
the car, for the auto mechanic who fixes it, for the manufacturer who 
makes it, and, most of all, for the consumers. They get a chance to buy 
a car that will be far more fuel efficient and also lower carbon. Now, 
that is what both sides of the aisle have talked about.
  My amendment makes interest payments on car loans and State sales/
excise car tax deductible for new cars purchased from November 12, 2008 
to December 31, 2009.
  How does this amendment help our economy? It saves jobs. If the 
domestic auto industry goes bankrupt, the U.S. would lose 3 million 
jobs, in manufacturing, repairs and service, car dealerships, and 
science and engineering. It helps consumers. A family would save about 
$1,553 on a $25,000 car, such as a Dodge minivan. Cars are most 
families' biggest purchases after their homes. It supports States and 
local governments. States rely on car excise taxes for their 
infrastructure projects. More car sales means more revenue for 
struggling State and local governments.
  It is urgently needed. To reach viability, the Big Three need U.S. 
new car sales to be at 13 million a year at a minimum. Sales in 
December were more than 20 percent below that minimum--10.3 million a 
year. This is the only proposal that will stimulate demand up the 
supply chain so that the Big Three's restructuring plans will work.
  Who would qualify for this tax deduction? Families who make less than 
$250,000; $125,000 for individuals. The deduction is ``above-the-
line''--meaning it can be taken advantage of by itemizers and 
nonitemizers. It only applies on cars that are less than $49,500.
  I have a statement from someone whom I never thought I would be in 
alignment with, the economist Martin Feldstein. He is on the 
conservative side, and everybody knows you kind of cover me blue. He 
says what we should focus on is providing incentives to households and 
businesses to increase current spending. Why not a tax credit to 
households to purchase cars or other consumer durables?
  I will quote from his article, dated Thursday, January 29, 2009, in 
the Washington Post:

       As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose 
     a stimulus plan. In fact, on this page in October, I declared 
     my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now before 
     Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, 
     it does too little to raise national spending and employment. 
     It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a 
     month, or even two, if that's what it takes to produce a much 
     better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.
       Start with the tax side. The plan is to give a tax cut of 
     $500 a year for two years to each employed person. That's not 
     a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows 
     that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is 
     largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent 
     of last year's tax rebates led to additional spending.
       The proposed business tax cuts are also likely to do little 
     to increase business investment and employment. The extended 
     loss ``carrybacks'' are primarily lump-sum payments to 
     selected companies. The bonus depreciation plan would do 
     little to raise capital spending in the current environment 
     of weak demand because the tax benefits in the early years 
     would be recaptured later.
       Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing 
     incentives to households and businesses to increase current 
     spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to 
     households that purchase cars or other major consumer 
     durables, analogous to the investment tax credit for 
     businesses? Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements? 
     In that way, the same total tax reduction could produce much 
     more spending and employment.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. My time has expired. Madam President, I ask for 2 
minutes to conclude.
  All I say is this: I thank the Chair for allowing me to offer the 
amendment. But if you want a car at your house, call the White House or 
call the House of Representatives. The problem now is not the idea but 
it is the politics. Let's get the White House on our side. Let's get 
the House of Representatives on this side. Flood not the streets but 
flood them with the phone calls. Call these numbers. Let's get America 
rolling again.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
New York.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam President.
  I thank my colleague from Maryland, who is doing a great job on the 
car amendment, and my colleague from Montana, the chair, who has led us 
extremely well on this legislation.
  We are trying to deal with an economic crisis that grows worse day by 
day, similar to an economic 9/11 that ought to be bringing us together. 
The economy is hurtling southward. People are laid off every second and 
every minute. You get on the phone and talk to someone you know--I 
spoke to a friend of mine. Her sister had been laid off. I went to a 
local Italian restaurant. The waiter's wife had been laid off. The 
woman who cuts my hair, her husband has been laid off.
  We are hemorrhaging jobs. The middle class is losing dollars. The 
country could edge over into a recessionary spiral downward that 
actually turns into deflation, which could, God forbid, turn into a 
depression. Yet while President Obama shows leadership, the other side 
is still adamantly sticking to policies that do not work. They are 
arguing for marginal rate cuts and choosing to ignore that the very 
purpose of a stimulus package is to spend money, to help fill the void 
left by a dramatic reduction in consumer and business spending.
  This package certainly does not have everything I want or any single 
Member wants. But for the sake of this

[[Page S2042]]

country, we all must give and come together and get it passed--not only 
passing on the floor today but getting this passed in conference 
quickly because every day we wait more are laid off.
  In my judgment, this package should be more heavily tilted toward 
spending, jobs, putting money in the pocket of the middle class. This 
is a position supported by the vast majority of mainstream economists.
  The President and Senate Democrats have bent over backward to 
accommodate views we do not feel accurately portray what needs to be 
done. People are criticizing President Obama for being partisan last 
night. But let me tell you, he and we have reached out and done our 
best to bring Republicans along. But as the President said last night, 
drawing the line at continuing the very policies that got us into this 
position in the first place is the proper place to draw that line. To 
pass a bill with 80 votes that would do nothing to help the average 
person would be a far greater failure than passing a bill with 61 votes 
that starts our economy moving again.
  There are three criteria for this bill, simply put: jobs, tax cuts 
for the middle class, and rebuilding our infrastructure. Let me repeat 
that: jobs, tax cuts for the middle class, and rebuilding our 
infrastructure. Most every provision in this bill does one of those 
three things now. Lots of little porky things have been taken out.
  So while some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want 
to cure the Bush recession with the Bush economic plan, the President 
was right to say no. As for bipartisanship, we have been trying; Lord, 
we have been trying. The two largest amendments added to this bill--a 
total of $106 billion of the $840 billion in the bill--were added by 
Republicans. This isn't just allowing people to debate; this isn't just 
saying we will listen to you and not do what you want. Again, let me 
repeat: The two biggest amendments added to the recovery package were 
Republican amendments, Senator Isakson's at $36 billion and Senator 
Grassley's at $70 billion, and they didn't vote for the bill. What do 
you want out of us? This is not a small little bauble of $10 million in 
tax cuts or in spending. This is close to one-eighth of the entire 
bill, and it doesn't bring us a single vote. How can you say we are not 
being bipartisan when we have allowed major changes to be made to this 
bill, despite the President's wishes?

  What has happened here is very simple. Our Republican colleagues want 
the right to add amendments but never will vote for the bill, except 
for three courageous Senators--two from Maine, one from Pennsylvania. 
What more can we do? There were 472 amendments filed, 48 considered, 27 
offered by Republicans, a good bunch of those accepted. Many of us 
voted for them. What more bipartisanship do you want?
  Here is the sad fact. The sad fact is this: Unless the bill is all 
tax cuts mostly for the wealthy and has virtually no spending, a large 
number on the other side will never vote for it. Never. So all the talk 
of bipartisanship is that: mere talk. We are walking the walk. We are 
adding Republican amendments. We are giving people a chance to offer 
amendments. We are not so-called ``filling the tree'' and blocking 
debate. We have to scrounge, beg, and plead, for three votes. Again, I 
salute those three who did it. They made changes in the package that I 
didn't want. I would rather see more money in education. I would rather 
see ours similar to the House bill, which has 34 percent tax cuts and 
66 percent creating jobs and helping people keep jobs, but again we 
went from 34 percent tax cuts to 44 percent.
  I wish to make one other point before I conclude. Many on the other 
side point to one little provision or another. They say, Well, there is 
money for STD; there is money for the Mall. Well, we took those out, 
but make no mistake about it, if we took them out, they still weren't 
going to vote for the bill. They were excuses. Let me say this to all 
of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little tiny, yes, 
porky amendments. The American people don't care. The American people 
care far more that there is a proposal in the bill--this one I pushed--
that gives a $2,500 credit to families who pay tuition to put their 
kids through college. Great relief. They care far more about that than 
about some small provision in the bill that shouldn't be there, because 
the tax relief from tuition costs they are going to get means far more 
to them. They care more about a provision that keeps the teachers in 
their schools. They care far more about the provisions that will build 
roads and bridges and employ people in their communities. So to all of 
us, particularly on my side, let's not fall for the bait. Let's not 
make this a bill that is mostly things such as refurbishing the Mall or 
sexually transmitted diseases which should be out of the bill. It is a 
bill about jobs. It is a bill about tax cuts to the middle class. It is 
a bill about infrastructure. The American people know that. They know 
they are hurting. They know we have reached out, and they know we have 
to act.
  So we will not be diverted. We will do our best to bring more 
Republicans over to our side, and I hope that happens this week. We 
will be open to new suggestions just as we were to $106 billion in 
suggestions that were added to the bill. But we will not sacrifice the 
focus of this bill: jobs, tax cuts for the middle class, and 
infrastructure for anything, because America demands that we get 
ourselves out of this mess.
  I salute our President. He put together a great package. My 
colleagues in the House improved on it. We in the Senate reluctantly 
had to pull back on certain portions of the House bill to get the 60 
votes necessary, and we did it for the good of the country, even though 
each of us would have written it differently. Now we must move forward. 
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider, to 
acknowledge that we have been very bipartisan, to acknowledge that our 
country has a crisis, to acknowledge that they actually lost the 
election and can't write the whole bill, even though they will have 
some suggestions; and I urge that we all come together the way we did 
after 9/11 when there was another crisis and move this country forward.
  I yield my remaining time to my friend from Montana and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am deeply troubled by the enormous 
debt this legislation is creating for future generations. Under almost 
any other circumstance I would vote against this bill for that very 
reason. But our economy is in desperate shape, and we are facing the 
worst economic crisis since World War II.
  Since the recession began a little over a year ago, 3.6 million jobs 
have been lost, with nearly half of those coming just in the last 3 
months. The unemployment rate is 7.6 percent and rising, and the number 
of unemployed is approaching 5 million.
  The deeply flawed financial regulatory policies of the last two 
decades paved the way for this economic collapse, and the budget 
policies of the last 8 years have left us ill-equipped to address it 
without running up hundreds of billions in debt.
  There are no good options, but doing nothing is simply unacceptable.
  The bill on which we will vote today is far from perfect. On that 
there is nearly unanimous agreement. The question before us, then, is 
whether to vote against this bill and hope we can produce legislation 
that will be more effective, or to support this bill and begin to do 
something, however imperfect, to stop the economy from plunging 
further.
  Given the current makeup of the Senate, it is extremely unlikely that 
the Senate will produce a better bill. We could work on it for another 
couple of weeks, but the changes would be small. It is far more 
important that we act to prime the economic pump, and that we do so 
soon. And for that reason, I will support this far from perfect 
measure, and hope that it will be improved in conference.
  But this bill should not set a new precedent for budget policies. 
Once we stop the economic plunge, we absolutely must return to a 
sustainable budget policy, one that will reduce the mountain of debt we 
have left to our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I support the Economic Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act.
  This legislation will create jobs by encouraging innovation for the 
development of clean energy and strengthening our Nation's 
infrastructure. This

[[Page S2043]]

vital bill will assist States so that they can continue to provide 
vital services. States need help in meeting the social service and 
health care needs of their communities. As economic activity has 
declined, State revenues have also decreased. Supporting States so that 
they can continue to provide health care coverage and essential social 
services will help our constituents in this great time of need. States 
must be good stewards of these resources and utilize them for their 
intended purposes. This recovery bill will also provide relief to 
workers and families hardest hit by the economic recession.
  I am proud to support provisions in the Economic Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act which will bring financial relief to our Nation's 
struggling public schools, colleges and universities. Our Nation's 
future depends upon our ability to provide our keiki with the 
educational opportunities they need today so they can compete in 
tomorrow's global economy. The Senate bill includes $39 billion in much 
needed funding to assist our local school districts as well as public 
colleges and universities. It also includes funding for teacher quality 
partnership grants to improve the quality of new teachers and encourage 
individuals to enter the teaching field. In addition, the Senate-passed 
version also provides $12.4 billion in title I grants to Local 
Education Agencies to help our Nation's most disadvantaged students. 
The Senate bill also helps students and their families achieve the 
dream of a higher education by increasing the Pell Grant maximum award 
by $281 for award year 2009-2010 and then by $400 for 2010-2011.
  I am pleased that the legislation includes significant funding that 
will benefit the Department of Veterans Affairs and the veterans it 
serves. I have been working, along with other members of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, to advocate for the needs of veterans in the context 
of this recovery and reinvestment bill. I am very grateful to the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Hawaii's senior Senator, Mr. 
Inouye, for hearing our message and providing tangible results.
  The money in this package that is appropriated for VA will help 
advance a number of projects that have been languishing for too long. 
For example, VA has a $10 billion backlog in major health care 
facilities construction. This stimulus package includes $3.7 billion 
for health care and services, the vast majority of it for facility 
construction.
  Included in that sum is $1.1 billion for major facility construction 
that can be used to build new hospitals for veterans who have 
insufficient access to health care, or have lost use of their hospital 
due to damage or disrepair. Another $1.37 billion is targeted on 
crucial nonrecurring maintenance to facilities that need upgrades or 
repairs. There is also nearly $940 million appropriated for minor 
construction, which will be used to build new community based 
outpatient clinics, among other purposes.
  The legislation also includes $50 million to improve benefits for 
veterans.
  I am pleased with the almost $65 million intended for VA's National 
Cemetery Administration. Of this amount, $60 million will be used to 
provide much needed cemetery infrastructure support and repair and 
investment in VA's National Shrine initiative. I believe the funding 
will go a long way toward meeting our obligation to provide final 
resting places for veterans and honor their service on our behalf.
  As helpful as this infusion of funding will be, I remind all of my 
colleagues that this only addresses existing, unmet needs. When it is 
time to begin work on the new budget, we cannot subtract any money from 
the VA appropriation, as all of those funds will be needed to meet the 
new fiscal year's costs.
  I am pleased that Veterans' Affairs Committee staff was able to work 
with the Finance Committee to ensure that certain VA beneficiaries 
receive economic recovery payments. I appreciate the willingness of the 
Finance Committee to make certain that VA beneficiaries, who might not 
otherwise receive a payment, get one in this time of economic 
uncertainty.
  I also commend my colleague, Senator Inouye, for his ongoing advocacy 
on behalf of the Filipino veterans of World War II. This legislation 
contains an authorization for a lump sum payment for funds that were 
appropriated last session for these veterans.
  I look forward to swift enactment of this essential legislation 
intended to help working families, create jobs, improve infrastructure, 
and assist veterans.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, for the past week, the Senate has been 
debating an economic recovery plan introduced by Senators Inouye and 
Baucus. I support this plan because the American people and their 
communities need it to create jobs, help stabilize the economy, and 
protect those who have been most hurt by the current global economic 
and financial crises.
  We are confronting the most severe economic problems this country has 
experienced in generations. The U.S. economy has been in recession 
since December 2007. America's GDP declined 3.8 percent in the fourth 
quarter of 2008, the steepest drop since 1982. The United States lost 
2.6 million jobs last year, the most since 1945. And last week we 
learned that the U.S. economy shed 598,000 jobs in January, putting the 
unemployment rate at 7.6 percent.
  In my home State of Vermont, not only has the amount of credit 
available to small businesses shrunk significantly, but our 
unemployment rate jumped to 6.4 percent in December--the highest 
measurement in more than 15 years. With many more firms announcing 
layoffs in January and so far in February, the economic numbers are 
shaping up as even bleaker news for America's working families, and 
also for America's now out-of-work families.
  Of course, Vermont is not alone in this struggle. Workers, 
businesses, and State and local governments all across the country face 
mounting debt, slumping orders, and sagging budgets.
  To respond to this extraordinary crisis, I agree with President Obama 
and a vast majority of Americans that we must act quickly and 
responsibly to pass an economic recovery and job creation plan as bold 
as the challenges we face. By acting now to strengthen our economy and 
invest in America's future, we can create good-paying jobs, cut taxes 
for working families, and make responsible investments in our future.
  Our No. 1 priority should be to put America back to work. This 
economic recovery plan we are debating today will help create or save 
million of jobs, including an entire generation of green jobs that will 
make public and private investments in renewable energy and make 
America more energy efficient.
  Investing in our country's infrastructure and education will do more 
than create jobs today--it also will put the country back on a long-
term path toward prosperity. Rebuilding our roads and bridges; 
expanding broadband access to rural communities; making our energy grid 
smart and more efficient; constructing state-of-the-art classrooms, 
labs and libraries; and investing in job training that Americans will 
need to succeed in the 21st century economy will give us tangible 
assets that we can use for years to come to foster additional economic 
growth.
  But it has been interesting over the past week to listen to the 
impassioned speeches of some members of the minority party in relation 
to this economic recovery bill. Despite all of the pain being felt in 
America today, it is as if their tax-cutting policies, in effect for 
the past 8 years, were a resounding success and built a strong economy, 
rather than left the American people with a trillion-dollar deficit and 
the highest unemployment rates in recent history. It is as if they have 
somehow convinced themselves that we should go right on supporting the 
Bush administration's policies that the voters soundly rejected last 
November.
  For instance, I have heard criticism about the increased Federal 
funding for State and local law enforcement in this bill. Some have 
called this a ``pet project'' which will do little to stimulate the 
economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tough economic times 
create conditions that can too easily lead to a spike in crime. Just 2 
weeks ago, USA Today reported a study by the Police Executive Research 
Forum finding that nearly half of the 233 police agencies surveyed had 
seen significant increases in crime since the economic crisis began. 
Maintaining effective State and local law enforcement during a time of 
budget cutting

[[Page S2044]]

at the State and local levels is key to our efforts to combat the 
scourge of drugs and crime.
  The funding the Senate has included in the recovery package for State 
and local law enforcement will not only help to address vital crime 
prevention needs, but will also have an immediate and positive impact 
on the economy, as police chiefs and experts from across the country 
told the Senate Judiciary Committee in our first hearing of the year, 
which I chaired last month. Hiring new police officers will stimulate 
the economy as fast as, or faster than, other spending. For 
construction jobs, only 30 to 40 percent of the funds go to salaries, 
but in police hiring, nearly 100 percent of the money goes to creating 
jobs.
  We also need to remember that crime and drugs are not just big city 
issues. I held Judiciary Committee hearings in Rutland and St. Albans, 
VT, last year to seek solutions to the growing problem of drug crime in 
rural areas. Rural areas, which lack the crime prevention and law 
enforcement resources often available in larger communities, have in 
many cases been hit particularly hard by the economic crisis. The 
Senate bill's inclusion of such assistance is important and should 
remain.
  I am also pleased that the Senate has chosen to include in its 
recovery package funding for programs protecting women who are victims 
of violence through the Violence Against Women Act, as well as for 
victims of crime--addressing those who are most vulnerable to the 
likely increases in crime in a down economy. Law enforcement officials 
and victims' advocates have made clear to the Judiciary Committee that 
in the current economic crisis there are more victims than ever in need 
of more help than before, but funding sources for victim services are 
scarce. Those already victimized by crime should not also be victims of 
our struggling economy.
  I have also long held the view that American innovation can and 
should play a vital role in revitalizing our economy and in improving 
our Nation's health care system. I commend the lead sponsors of the 
economic recovery legislation for making sure that this bill includes 
an investment in health information technology that takes meaningful 
steps to protect the privacy of American consumers. The privacy 
protections for electronic health records in the economic recovery 
package are essential to a successful national health IT system. Among 
other things, these privacy safeguards give each individual the right 
to access his or her own electronic health records and the right to 
timely notice of data breaches involving their health information, and 
the safeguards place critical restrictions on the sale of sensitive 
health data.
  Also crucial are funds for fraud enforcement, which is necessary for 
protecting the integrity and efficiency not only of the financial 
system, but also of the spending in this bill--the very concern that 
critics of the bill keep harping on. The economic crisis has revealed 
an epidemic of fraud related to the mortgage fraud crisis and the 
resulting corporate collapses. The FBI and other Federal agencies will 
soon be overwhelmed with new cases. In the past year, the FBI has 
received more than 60,000 Suspicious Activity Reports from banks, a 
number which has doubled in 3 years, but currently there are fewer than 
200 agents assigned to investigate these criminal allegations. The 
significant funding included in the Senate recovery and reinvestment 
bill would help the FBI hold accountable those responsible for 
contributing to our economic crisis.
  Nobody thinks this bill is perfect. Like most bills, there are things 
in it that I like and other things that I disagree with. We are part of 
a global economic recession involving forces that extend far beyond our 
borders, and nobody thinks this bill will eliminate unemployment 
completely or solve all our fiscal problems. It took years to get us 
into this mess, and it will take years to get us out. There is no quick 
fix--not this bill, not any bill.
  But America is hurting, and Americans urgently need our help. They 
want action and solutions. I strongly support this economic recovery 
package because I believe it would provide a direct infusion of 
emergency aid to create new jobs, help save existing jobs, make 
significant infrastructure investments, provide relief for massive 
State budget deficits, and relieve the tax burden on struggling 
families. We have had a long, tough debate here in the Senate, but 
America deserves nothing less than our best effort.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this economic stimulus bill contains 
$87.7 billion to bail out State Medicaid programs and more than $21 
billion to have the Government control the adoption rate of health 
information technology (health IT) through Medicare and Medicaid.
  We are in the middle of an economic crisis today. Yet the health IT 
spending through Medicare and Medicaid will not start until 2011. 
Interestingly enough, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, has stated 
it ``anticipates near-universal adoption of health IT over the next 
quarter century even without legislative action. As a result, the 0.3 
percent reduction in health care costs estimated to result in the near 
term from enactment of this bill would diminish in later years, when 
the use of health IT will be more pervasive in any event.'' So this 
stimulus bill spends money more than 2 years after the economic crisis 
has started on an issue that the market would have addressed on its 
own.
  This is just one of the many examples that illustrate that the 
stimulus is, as recently noted by the Wall Street Journal's editorial 
page, ``90 percent social policy and 10 percent economic policy.'' I 
believe that this ``social policy'' will be counterproductive to the 
goals of universal adoption of health IT because it will mire the 
health care system in new bureaucratic red tape.
  Another example of the stimulus's social policies is its inclusion of 
$1.1 billion for research on medical treatment comparative 
effectiveness. This is to be used to ``accelerate the development and 
dissemination of research assessing the comparative clinical 
effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies, including 
through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that 
compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of 
items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or 
treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions and (2) 
encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data 
networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to 
generate or obtain outcomes data.''
  Included in this $1.1 billion spending is a $400 million ``slush 
fund'' given to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, that 
could be construed to allow the Secretary to use however he or she 
wishes. Let me be clear, none of the comparative effectiveness research 
funding under the stimulus may be used for anything but research on 
comparative clinical effectiveness.
  While I recognize and appreciate that the comparative effectiveness 
provisions of this bill only permit comparative clinical effectiveness, 
I am concerned that this lays the groundwork for comparative cost 
effectiveness with bills that the Obama administration will push and 
Congress will consider in the future. Why else would they be pushing to 
spend $1.1 billion on comparative clinical effectiveness, if the 
intention was not to one day tie the answers from that research to cost 
and coverage decisions?
  To quote one of President Obama's top White House health advisers, 
Jeanne Lambrew, ``There is a bipartisan--I should be careful about the 
bipartisan, working the bipartisanship in the Senate. The House isn't 
quite as bipartisan as we would like but there has been support for 
investing about $1.1 billion in this economic recovery act for over two 
years for ARC and partly for NIH and partly for under agency activities 
to begin to try to say how do we get at the relative costs, excuse me, 
the relative effectiveness of the different services.'' That statement 
could be characterized as a Freudian slip.
  While Congress has limited comparative effectiveness research funding 
in the stimulus to clinical effectiveness questions, I am concerned 
that the sponsors of this bill and the Obama administration have plans 
to force on the American public coverage decisions based on comparative 
cost effectiveness. Make no mistake: I will vigorously fight those 
efforts in the future.
  In addition to the comparative clinical effectiveness research 
spending, the stimulus bill creates a structure

[[Page S2045]]

similar to the Federal Health Board described in the book ``Critical'' 
by former Senator Tom Daschle. President Obama endorsed this book and 
has relied on Senator Daschle's advice in crafting his health care 
agenda. A new, bureaucratic Federal Coordinating Council for 
Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research would be established under 
section 802 of the stimulus. The council will advise the President and 
Congress on No. 1. strategies with respect to the infrastructure needs 
of comparative clinical effectiveness research within the Federal 
Government; No. 2. appropriate organizational expenditures for 
comparative clinical effectiveness research by relevant Federal 
departments and agencies; and No. 3. opportunities to assure optimum 
coordination of comparative clinical effectiveness and related health 
services research conducted or supported by relevant Federal 
departments and agencies, with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts 
and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources.
  The council would be composed of 15 members, all of whom are senior 
Federal officers or employees with responsibility for health-related 
programs. It concerns me that no attempt is made with this language to 
ensure council membership includes private, nongovernment experts. The 
American people know that medical experts at places like Harvard, Johns 
Hopkins, and Yale have more expertise on medical issues than 
bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services. In the 
future, I will work to ensure that this council--and the American 
people--benefit from the expertise that resides in the minds of our 
country's premier medical experts.
  The council would report annually on Federal activities in this area 
and recommendations for further research. While I recognize and 
appreciate that the comparative clinical effectiveness research and the 
council in the stimulus do not go as far as the board outlined in 
Senator Daschle's book, I am gravely concerned that it is simply the 
precursor to a full-fledged Federal Health Board. In Senator Daschle's 
own words, a Federal Health Board may alter the traditional doctor-
patient relationship by giving the Federal Health Board new powers to 
make coverage decisions about medical technologies, treatments, drugs, 
and procedures, ``Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on 
their ability to choose certain treatments . . .''
  The model proposed by Senator Daschle and endorsed by President 
Obama--and which I am concerned the stimulus lays the groundwork for--
would be disastrous for American patients. This exact model is a failed 
policy of the past in Great Britain's health care system. Great 
Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellent, NICE, 
evaluates new medical drugs and treatments for coverage decisions for 
all British citizens.
  An approach like NICE neglects the basic fact that medical decisions 
vary by individual patient and disease processes. Medicine is not 
simply a cold science; it is also an art that reflects each individual 
patient's condition.
  An approach like NICE will ultimately attach price tags to patients' 
lives and result in treatment rationing. To quote my friend Dr. Scott 
Gottlieb in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion editorial, ``[NICE] 
has concluded that $45,000 is the most worth paying for products that 
extend a person's life by one `quality-adjusted' year. (By their 
calculus, a year combating cancer is worth less than a year in perfect 
health.) . . . In Britain, there's vocal dissent against NICE 
constraints, especially among the cancer patients who are denied many 
effective new drugs that, for now, are widely prescribed in the U.S. 
The rich, of course, are able to opt out of the British controls. But 
the rest of the country has to appeal to politicians--rather than their 
doctors--to gain access to restricted medicines.''
  Rather than top-down Government solutions that control costs by one-
size-fits-all coverage mandates, I believe that a health care market 
that plays by fair rules is a far more powerful force to control costs 
and improve quality. The American people know it works because that 
competition and entrepreneurship has worked in every other American 
industry. I support creating a health care system where patients and 
doctors are able to make decisions based on individual patient 
conditions and needs.
  The American people know that bureaucrats and politicians cannot be 
trusted as the ultimate arbiters of medical decisions. I will 
vigorously oppose any efforts to take choice and individualized care 
away from patients and their doctors.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this is a truly historic moment. We are 
taking a bold step to meet the greatest challenge to our Nation's 
continued prosperity in a generation. Thanks to visionary leadership 
from our new President and from our leaders here in Congress, we can 
offer new hope for working families throughout the Nation.
  America is mired in a crisis unlike any we have seen since the Great 
Depression. Trillions of dollars of hard-earned wealth have been wiped 
out. Families are losing their homes, their jobs, their health care, 
their life savings, and their hopes for the future.
  At the heart of this economic turmoil is the collapse of the jobs 
market. We lost 2.6 million jobs last year. Over 11 million Americans 
are unemployed--that is more than four unemployed workers for every job 
opening in the country. We recently learned that there were 626,000 new 
jobless claims in the past week and that 4.8 million Americans are 
collecting unemployment compensation--the highest number on record. The 
monthly job numbers released last Friday show that the national 
unemployment rate has reached 7.6 percent. In many States, unemployment 
has already reached 8, 9, or even 10 percent.
  Getting laid off can start a devastating downward spiral. It often 
means the loss of health insurance, leaving families with exorbitant 
medical bills when they can least afford them. It means more parents 
can no longer afford to send their children to college or even put food 
on the table or heat their homes.
  We need to turn our economy around, and we need to do it now. 
Economists agree that only ambitious and aggressive job creation 
policies--and strong government investment in our nation's future can 
spark a revival of our economy.
  In November, Americans voted overwhelmingly for change--for action 
over gridlock, for practical solutions over ideology, and for a 
government that has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity. 
President Obama has called on us to pass a bold economic recovery bill 
that embraces these priorities and the bill before us will do that.
  First and foremost, this legislation would create good new jobs by 
repairing and replacing aging infrastructure. The funding included for 
water infrastructure--both for wastewater and for drinking water--is 
long overdue. In New England, we have some of the oldest sewer 
infrastructure in the Nation. Much of it was built in bygone years when 
excess sewage was dumped into public waterways. These funds are a good 
start, but much more must be done to replace these so-called combined 
sewer systems.
  Similarly, the bill's investments in roads, bridges, and transit are 
absolutely essential to putting people back to work, and to avoiding 
some of the catastrophes we have seen, such as the I-35 bridge collapse 
in Minnesota. I commend the bill's managers for recognizing how 
essential these projects are for the Nation's future.
  In all, the Congressional Budget Office reports that economic 
recovery legislation could save or create up to 2.4 million new jobs 
this year, up to 3.9 million jobs in 2010, and up to 1.9 million jobs 
in 2011. These jobs will make a tremendous difference in revitalizing 
our economy.
  But in the meantime, millions of Americans still need help to weather 
the storm. That is why this bill extends and temporarily increases 
unemployment insurance benefits. These extra dollars will give a strong 
boost to economic growth, while putting more money in the pockets of 
millions of Americans facing the worst job market in a quarter century.
  Unfortunately, there are millions of hard-working Americans who have 
contributed to this vital program, but who don't benefit from it. Only 
37 percent of unemployed workers receive benefits. These rules are 
particularly unfair to the most vulnerable Americans--including low-
wage workers and the

[[Page S2046]]

many women who juggle work and childcare responsibilities.
  There is no better time to strengthen this vital safety net and 
extend it to Americans who have funded it with their hard-earned 
dollars. That is why I am pleased that this legislation includes 
provisions from the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act, a 
bipartisan bill which I have worked on with Senators Baucus, Snowe, 
Stabenow, Rockefeller, and many others. These provisions will 
immediately improve coverage for more than 500,000 workers unable to 
qualify for these benefits now. It will also provide needed funds to 
States to keep their unemployment offices open and running smoothly, 
even under the overwhelming flood of applications from workers who have 
lost their jobs.
  The recovery package also strengthens the safety net by making other 
important investments in the health and wellbeing of children and low-
income families. It provides major increases for the School Lunch 
Program, food stamps, Meals on Wheels, food bank aid, and low-income 
weatherization assistance. These programs are particularly vital today, 
when family budgets are being stripped to the bone.
  I am especially pleased by the increase in food stamp aid. More than 
half a million residents in Massachusetts rely on food stamps to buy 
food each month. Nearly 70 percent of the assistance goes to households 
with children, and 20 percent goes to households with an elderly 
person.
  These investments are essential to meet the needs of our most 
vulnerable citizens. In fact, increased spending on food stamps is 
among the most effective ways to stimulate the economy, and I commend 
the leadership for bringing forward a bill that makes this kind of wise 
and compassionate investment.
  The legislation will also immediately help Americans to stay healthy, 
thus making them more productive and successful. It provides job 
support in medical research. It promotes a primary care workforce. It 
helps unemployed workers protect their health while looking for new 
jobs and opportunities.
  To create a healthier America, we need greater emphasis on 
prevention. Citizens need access to primary care providers and 
preventive screenings, communities need vigorous prevention 
initiatives, and the nation needs a strong national public health 
infrastructure and workforce. In our ongoing discussions and work on 
health reform, it is vital for us to address how best to support 
prevention and wellness and revitalize our public health system.
  Funds provided in the bill are also an important first step in 
increasing the nation's ability to conduct comparative effectiveness 
research and achieve the important goal of helping Americans obtain the 
right care, in the right place, at the right time, every time.
  It makes no sense to hamstring such research by placing unnecessary 
restrictions on what may and may not be studied. Limiting studies only 
to the clinical practice of medicine could inadvertently prohibit 
research comparing reforms in health services. One of the best examples 
of comparative effectiveness research is a study of patients with 
pneumonia, which has helped us understand who should be hospitalized 
and who can be cared for at home. That is important science, and we 
need to encourage it.
  Obviously, this stimulus funding is by no means the end of the 
comparative effectiveness research movement. It is just the beginning. 
The debate over what research should be conducted, how it should be 
governed, and how it should be used should be reserved for the ongoing 
policy discussion.
  The legislation also includes important investments in health 
information technology. Use of electronic medical records will enable 
our health care system to provide the highest possible quality of care, 
and also benefit from the improved efficiency that other industries 
have already achieved through IT. This investment will help develop a 
high-tech infrastructure for our health care system, and it will also 
create high paying jobs today. IT industry experts estimate that every 
$10 billion spent on health information will create more than 200,000 
jobs in manufacturing, software development and information technology 
services.
  Finally, the recovery package before us also takes important steps to 
strengthen education as a key strategy to revitalize the economy and 
move America forward. It includes important investments at every point 
in the education pipeline. It will help to prevent harmful teacher 
layoffs and cuts in school budgets, expand access to child care and 
preschool programs, and strengthen Pell grants to provide a lifeline of 
assistance to needy college students.
  American education is severely affected by the economic downturn. 
This package responds directly to that challenge by beginning to revive 
America's preschool classrooms, its elementary, middle, and high 
schools, and colleges.
  Resources devoted to education and to the future of America's youth 
are among the most important investments proposed in this legislation, 
and this assistance couldn't come at a better time. According to the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 34 States have implemented or 
proposed cuts in K-12 education. It is part of the economic crunch of 
rising unemployment, declining consumer spending, and home 
foreclosures. Per pupil spending has been reduced, school breakfast 
programs have been eliminated, training for teachers and principals has 
been cut off, and in some cases schools have been forced to reduce 
hours in the school day or shorten the school year.
  Across the Nation, school superintendents have implemented or plan to 
implement staff reductions. Many school districts facing shrinking 
budgets are planning cuts in math and science classes, in new teacher 
programming, and in teacher mentoring--and they are also increasing 
class sizes. We must not force America's students to bear these high 
costs of our economic crisis.
  I am especially pleased, therefore, that this legislation includes 
$39 billion in emergency basic aid to states to prevent harsh cutbacks 
and reduce budget shortfalls in early childhood education, K-12 
education, and higher education. Such aid is a lifeline of support for 
America's preschools, classrooms, and college campuses.
  The bill also makes a significant commitment toward meeting the needs 
of low-income children, by providing $12.4 billion under title I of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and provides an unprecedented 
$13.5 billion to assist schools in meeting their commitment to students 
with special needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act.
  The increase in funding for title I immediately demonstrates our 
commitment to prevent harmful cuts and deliver the support and 
solutions needed for schools to close achievement gaps and meet the 
goals of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  The investment in IDEA is a down payment towards finally meeting the 
Federal Government's 33-year old promise to fund 40 percent of the 
average per-pupil expenditure for every child in special education. The 
Federal Government now funds less than half of this commitment, because 
of the economic shortfall at the local level that is being exacerbated 
by the current crisis.
  I am also pleased that this legislation makes a key investment in 
upgrading schools for the 21st century by investing in the education 
technology program under the No Child Left Behind Act.
  For low-income college students across the country, the bill 
increases the maximum Pell grant by $281 for the next school year, and 
by $400 for the year after that. College costs have risen by more than 
400 percent over the past 20 years, but the size of the Pell grant has 
fallen far behind. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act we passed 
in the last Congress was a downpayment on this challenge, and this bill 
is another step in the right direction.
  In the current economic climate, this support is more important than 
ever. As in recessions past, Americans are entering or returning to 
college in record numbers. Over 6 million citizens have applied for 
Pell grants this year, an increase of over 10 percent compared to last 
year. With more and more low-income families and fewer and fewer jobs 
to go around, opening the doors of college to more students is a 
sensible response to this economic challenge. It will help us weather 
the crisis and better prepare our Nation to compete in the future.

[[Page S2047]]

  Our recovery won't be fair unless it also includes our Nation's 
youngest and most vulnerable children. This bill delivers over $1 
billion for the Head Start and Early Head Start programs, which will 
allow about 50,000 more children to participate in these programs. The 
size of Early Head Start will be increased by half, creating almost 
30,000 jobs.
  Investments in high-quality early learning programs like Head Start 
produce excellent returns for later economic growth and job 
development. Currently, Head Start serves only half of eligible 
preschoolers, and Early Head Start serves less than 3 percent of 
eligible infants and toddlers. These programs have been struggling, 
because operating costs associated with providing high-quality early 
childhood education are soaring, yet staff, program hours, 
transportation, and other services have been declining in order to deal 
with a 13-percent decrease in funds. The funding in this recovery 
package will help Head Start Centers across the country get back on 
their feet and back on track serving our youngest children.
  The legislation also invests in essential child care assistance for 
children and parents. It provides an increase of $2 billion in the 
child care development block grant, so that States can serve an 
additional 480,000 needy children, and paid work opportunities are 
created for 190,000 caregivers.
  Quality child care produces long-term benefits in children's learning 
and development. It also allows parents to continue working 
productively. The licensed child care sector enables parents to earn 
more than $100 billion annually, generating nearly $580 billion in 
direct and indirect labor income and more than 15 million jobs.
  We know that child care is one of the largest expenses for low-income 
families. Between 2006 and 2007, the average cost of full-time infant 
child care rose by 6.5 percent, and child care costs for four-year olds 
rose by 5.3 percent. Yet funding for the child care development block 
grant has been nearly flat since 2002. As a result, nearly 140,000 
fewer children are receiving Federal assistance under this program than 
in 2002. Only one out of every seven children eligible for assistance 
under this program now receives it.
  There is no question that the challenges we face as a nation are 
daunting. But they are challenges we must face together. Following the 
President's lead, we must ask more Americans to be part of the 
solution. This legislation makes that possible by including $200 
million for national service programs and infrastructure, an important 
investment for these difficult times.
  With the crisis hitting community after community, the demand for 
services and assistance is sharply increasing. In response, more 
Americans, young and old, are answering the President's call to serve. 
They are looking for ways to help. Applications to service 
organizations are up. AmeriCorps members across the country are already 
performing this needed role, from mentoring youth whose families are 
struggling, to ensuring low-income individuals have a place to go home 
to. The increased funding for national service opportunities in this 
bill will enable more Americans to help those in need, and will also 
provide support and assistance for nonprofit organizations doing some 
of the most important work in our neediest communities. Much more can 
be done to expand these opportunities and encourage more Americans to 
put their skills and ingenuity to work for others in their hard-hit 
communities. This legislation is a significant step toward this goal.
  This package makes many critical investments in our infrastructure 
and in our future. Never has action been more urgently needed to 
jumpstart our economy. This recovery legislation is an indispensible 
and long-overdue step toward putting our economy back to work for 
American families. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support these strong measures and to save and create jobs. Together, we 
can turn our economy around and begin a new era of prosperity for all 
our Nation's families.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the American people are counting on us to 
act to stabilize and revitalize the economy, and the Economic Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act that the Senate is considering is an essential 
part of that effort. It will create jobs and make investments to 
bolster our economy in both the short and long term.
  The situation is dire. The Nation is in a deep recession. Michigan's 
unemployment rate is the highest in the country. Michigan has lost over 
half a million jobs since January 2001, and more than 300,000 of those 
were manufacturing jobs. In this January alone, the Nation lost 598,000 
jobs, including 207,000 manufacturing jobs, and the number of first-
time jobless claims was higher than any time in the past quarter 
century. The economy is in very bad shape, and it is getting worse.
  Job creation must be our No. 1 priority as we work to turn the 
economy around, and jobs are the focus of this recovery plan. The 
provisions in this bill are designed to create jobs, including funding 
for infrastructure, tax cuts, and investments in critical technology. 
The Obama administration estimates that this plan will create or save 
over 3 million jobs nationwide--well over 100,000 jobs in Michigan 
alone--over the next 2 years, including jobs in health care, clean 
energy and construction.
  The recovery plan includes funding for investments in technology and 
modernization efforts that can help us compete in the global economy.
  The bill includes $2 billion in funding for the Department of Energy 
for grants to manufacturers of advanced batteries and battery systems, 
which will help provide American manufacturers the resources and the 
support they need to manufacture these batteries in U.S. facilities. 
The recovery package also includes $100 million in Defense Production 
Act funding, which will go toward the support of manufacturers of 
technologies for the next generation of vehicles used by the military. 
This funding is critical because battery manufacturers and other 
manufacturers are deciding now where to locate their production 
facilities, and we cannot afford to lose those facilities and the jobs 
located there to other countries that are willing to offer greater 
financial incentives than we are.
  The package also includes significant measures to expand the American 
market for advanced technology vehicles. It increases from 250,000 to 
500,000 the number of plug-in hybrid vehicles eligible for the consumer 
tax credit for these vehicles. And it includes funding for Federal 
agencies to aggressively lease alternative energy vehicles--such as 
hybrid vehicles--to support a wide variety of agency missions. 
Government leasing of these vehicles will help stimulate production of 
these vehicles. We cannot just preach about the need to produce these 
vehicles. We must lead the way in purchasing them, even though their 
up-front cost is greater.
  Shovel-ready infrastructure projects are the most immediate way to 
create jobs and get the economy moving quickly. The recovery plan 
includes over $45 billion in funding for ready-to-go road, bridge, rail 
and other projects to immediately and directly create jobs. I supported 
an amendment that would have added further funding for such projects, 
which unfortunately did not pass. Michigan has over $3 billion in 
transportation projects that can be commenced within 180 days. Even 
without the additional funding, the legislation we are considering will 
provide Michigan with nearly $900 million in highway formula funds and 
$165 million in transit formula funds, allowing for significant repairs 
to roads and bridges and purchases of buses for our public transit 
authorities. There is additional funding which will hopefully result in 
investments in the midwest high-speed rail corridor, and improvements 
to Amtrak that can help bring commuter rail to Michigan. I am 
especially pleased that the Senate stimulus bill distributes the 
highway infrastructure funds using the Surface Transportation Program, 
STP, authorized under the current highway law. The STP formula treats 
Michigan and other donor States in a much fairer manner than other 
highway funding allocation formulas.
  The legislation also provides $2 billion for the Army Corps to 
address river and harbor, flood and ecosystem restoration projects 
across our Nation. I am hopeful that a significant portion of these 
funds will be directed to the Great Lakes navigational system, one of 
our Nation's most important maritime highways, which faces a backlog

[[Page S2048]]

in many much-needed maintenance projects that are ready to go.
  Additionally, the legislation includes $6 billion for water 
infrastructure investments that will immediately employ people, protect 
public health, improve the environment, and create a stronger economic 
climate. This bill will provide Michigan with over $150 million for 
job-creating projects to address crucial wastewater needs, and about 
$70 million to improve water mains, leaking pipes, water treatment 
plants, pumping stations, and similar projects. It also includes $200 
million for environmental infrastructure projects that can create jobs 
while helping to mitigate the impact of combined sewer overflows, which 
dump harmful pollutants into the Great Lakes every year.
  There are also nearly $200 million worth of projects identified in 
conjunction with the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which was reauthorized in 
2008 in order for the EPA to clean up contaminated sediments in the 
Great Lakes, which are shovel ready and could be done in a few months. 
Last year, the Brookings Institution released a report that concluded 
that a Federal investment would yield economic benefits of 2\1/2\ to 1. 
I will continue to push for these projects to be funded promptly from 
the appropriations in this bill.
  The recovery package also includes $100 million in competitive grants 
for the cleanup of brownfield sites where redevelopment is complicated 
because of real or potential environmental contamination. Last year, 
Michigan was awarded $8 million for 22 such projects, and I am hopeful 
that a good portion of these grants will be awarded to Michigan 
communities. Because most of Michigan's grants were awarded for site 
assessments, rather than actual cleanup projects, I joined my 
colleagues Senators Cardin and Voinovich in sponsoring an amendment 
that would allow the grants to be awarded for both assessments and 
cleanup projects. Both of these uses would quickly put people to work 
and make these sites attractive for investment and reuse, creating 
additional new jobs, generating additional tax revenues, and improving 
communities' overall quality of life.
  Finally, on the infrastructure front, the bill includes about $750 
million for the National Park Service to address the lengthy backlog of 
maintenance projects and other important needs. I am hopeful that a 
significant portion of these funds will be used at Michigan's four 
national park units and the North Country National Scenic Trail. 
Michigan's park and trail funding needs are great, and numerous 
projects have been deferred for several years. It is estimated that 
Michigan's parks and trails could use upwards of $35 million in funding 
for infrastructure investments that could be started within the next 18 
months. I was concerned that the $23 million set aside for deferred 
maintenance of trails might exclude, for technical reasons, developing 
scenic trails, like the North Country Trail, which has 1,150 miles that 
run through Michigan. I obtained assurances on the record from Senator 
Feinstein, the sponsor of the trail funding language that such trails 
would in fact be eligible for the trail funding, and I am hopeful that 
many trail maintenance projects will begin soon, creating jobs and 
boosting the economy.
  The recovery bill will provide funds investing in health information 
technology, computerizing health records to reduce medical errors and 
save billions of dollars in health care costs.
  The tax provisions in this legislation will create a refundable tax 
credit of $500 for working individuals and $1,000 for working families, 
covering 95 percent of working families. Taxpayers can receive this 
benefit through a reduction in the amount of tax that is withheld from 
their paychecks, or through claiming the credit on their tax returns. 
This will mean direct and immediate relief for nearly 4 million 
Michigan workers. For many struggling families, this will help them 
make ends meet in these tough times. By putting extra money in 
families' pockets, these targeted tax cuts will offer an immediate 
boost to the economy.
  This recovery plan includes important measures that will modernize 
the current unemployment benefits system which includes administrative 
dollars and funds to incentivize States to modernize their unemployment 
insurance programs. This would mean more than $90 million for the State 
of Michigan right off the bat. This plan will also provide a further 
extension of unemployment benefits which will help the approximately 
162,000 unemployed workers in Michigan who are unable to find a job in 
these hard economic times and whose unemployment benefit will expire. 
Additionally, it will provide an additional $100 per month in 
unemployment benefits, pumping money directly into depressed economic 
areas. Further, the bill temporarily exempts the first $2,400 
unemployment benefits from income tax, meaning more of these funds can 
go to recipients and help grow the economy. Providing job training in 
new and expanding fields will help to lower the unemployment rate and 
help today's workers better compete against foreign competition. The 
bill provides $3.4 billion for job training including State formula 
grants for adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs, including $1.2 
billion to create up to one million summer jobs for youth. The training 
and employment needs of workers also will be met through dislocated 
worker national emergency grants, new competitive grants for worker 
training in high growth and emerging industry sectors, with priority 
consideration to ``green'' jobs and health care, and increased funds 
for the Job Corps and YouthBuild programs. Green jobs training will 
include preparing workers for activities supported by other economic 
recovery funds, such as retrofitting of buildings, green construction, 
and the production of renewable electric power. It also provides $500 
million for State formula funds for vocational rehabilitation State 
grants to help individuals with disabilities prepare for and sustain 
gainful employment; and $400 million for employment services grants to 
match unemployed individuals to job openings through State employment 
service agencies and allow States to provide customized reemployment 
services.
  The bill includes funding to enhance and expand education initiatives 
aimed at ensuring that our next generation of Americans is able to meet 
the challenges of a global economy. It includes a $39 billion State 
fiscal stabilization fund for local school districts and public 
colleges and universities, distributed through existing State and 
Federal formulas, and $7.5 billion to States as incentive grants as a 
reward for meeting key education performance measures. It also 
addresses the needs of educationally disadvantaged students served 
through the Title I program, including $12.4 billion to help close the 
achievement gap and enable these students to reach their potential. 
Further, the bill includes $13 billion to improve educational outcomes 
for children served under the Individuals with Disabilities in 
Education Act. This level of funding will increase the Federal share of 
special education services to its highest level ever. Finally, the bill 
adds $13.9 billion to increase the Pell grant maximum award and pay for 
increases in program costs resulting from increased eligibility and 
higher Pell grant awards. The bill supports an increased Pell Grant 
maximum award of $281 in the 2009-2010 academic year and $400 in the 
2010-2011 academic year, which will help 7 million students pursue 
postsecondary education.
  A provision was also included to encourage use of the low-income 
housing tax credit, an important tool for the development of affordable 
rental housing.
  Together, the provisions in this bill offer significant hope for our 
Nation's economic future. Still, a comprehensive economic recovery 
effort is balanced on a three legged stool consisting of creating jobs, 
unfreezing credit markets, and addressing the housing crisis, including 
reduction in the flood of foreclosures.
  I am assured that the Obama administration is moving towards prompt 
action on the other fronts. President Obama will soon be putting 
forward a significant housing measure focused on reducing foreclosures 
and stabilizing home values. The Treasury Department is working to 
reconfigure the so-called TARP funds, of which $350 billion remains, to 
unfreeze our Nation's credit markets. The Treasury is also establishing 
sensible conditions for financial institutions who receive loans

[[Page S2049]]

from the government so we can monitor what they do with the funds and 
get them to resume the flow of credit.
  This recovery plan represents an essential step toward stabilizing 
our economy. The infrastructure projects will create Michigan jobs, the 
tax provisions will help Michigan families and the investments in 
technology and modernization will pay dividends for years to come. 
While I am mindful of the further challenges we must address in order 
to end this recession, I support the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act with a sense of real urgency.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I commend the Senate Appropriations 
Committee for including $7 billion in the Reinvestment and Recovery Act 
for the Department of Commerce to improve broadband access in our 
country. This new program should bring broadband to unserved and 
underserved areas in Vermont and other rural parts of our country. That 
access is crucial to the vitality of rural communities which are in 
danger of being left off the technology highway.
  During deliberation of the reinvestment and recovery bill over the 
past week, I offered amendment No. 332 to set aside $100 million within 
the available $7 billion to provide loan guarantees for broadband 
construction. The program established in the underlying bill currently 
will fund only grants. These grants will be an important pillar of any 
financing for a national build out of broadband. However, loan 
guarantees are another important financing option to construct 
broadband networks. That is why I am offering this amendment to set 
aside less than 2 percent of the $9 billion for grants to establish a 
loan guarantee program.
  Creating a loan guarantee program alongside the grant program has the 
benefit of leveraging billions of additional dollars in broadband 
investment. The $100 million that my amendment would have set aside 
would have leveraged up to $2 billion in additional broadband 
initiatives. And perhaps more importantly, a loan guarantee program 
would have the potential of advancing broadband projects that were 
prepared to move forward with bonds only to be halted due to the 
economic downturn and crisis in the credit markets.
  In Vermont, I have been closely following the East Central Fiber, 
ECF, project. A group of 22 towns in the upper Connecticut and White 
River valleys of our State have formed a joint venture to bring fiber-
optic broadband communications services to their region. The area is 
currently underserved or un-served with the type of modern 
communications infrastructure which is so critical to their long term 
economic survival. The East Central Fiber group was prepared to build 
their fiber to the home project through municipal financing until the 
credit markets collapsed during the economic downturn. A federal loan 
guarantee program could be the difference in financing this $100 
million initiative.
  It makes sense to establish a loan guarantee program for broadband in 
conjunction with the new grant program this bill funds. The small 
percentage of funds my amendment would have set aside has the potential 
to leverage billions more in broadband investments for rural 
communities.
  This amendment was cleared by the relevant committees. Unfortunately 
Senators who oppose the reinvestment and recovery bill will raise 
objections to adopting any amendments by unanimous consent. Thus my 
amendment No. 332, as modified, along with several other amendments 
were denied being included in the final legislation that will pass the 
Senate today.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues to establish at Broadband 
Loan Guarantee program at the Department of Commerce. Such guarantees 
are an important part of any national strategy to bring broadband, 
including fiber to every home, to rural communities.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, these are perilous economic times.
  The national economy is shedding jobs at an alarming rate. Nearly 2 
million jobs have been lost nationwide in the last 3 months, with 3.6 
million jobs lost since December 2007. In West Virginia, our workforce 
has been buffered to some degree by the mining industry, but we, too, 
are now feeling the painful global recession. In December--in just 1 
month--West Virginia lost 4,100 jobs. We are hearing more frequently 
about layoff and job loss announcements: Dow Chemical in Kanawha 
County, Century Aluminum and Alcan in Jackson County, Bayer Material 
Science in Marshall County, Patriot Coal in Boone and Kanawha Counties, 
Mountaineer Racetrack & Casino in Hancock County, Simonton Windows in 
Ritchie County, AGC Flat Glass in Harrison County, American National 
Rubber in Wayne County, Georgia-Pacific in Fayette County, Greenbrier 
Resort Hotel in Greenbrier County, Kingwood Mining in Preston County, 
and Goodies Clothing and Circuit City stores throughout the State.
  The Federal Reserve has reduced its interest rate target to near 
zero, and continues to experiment with unprecedented programs to 
bolster lending, injecting about $1 trillion into the banking system. 
Adding to the unease, the Congress has authorized the Treasury 
Department to purchase up to $700 billion of toxic debt from financial 
institutions. This is an authority that has been used, so far, to 
recapitalize the banking system, seemingly with few, if any, strings 
attached on the institutions receiving the funding. Meanwhile, national 
deficits and debt are increasing to what still seem like improbable 
levels.
  If the stimulus package before the Congress today seems 
extraordinary, it is because the economic and fiscal challenge before 
us is extraordinary.
  Not only has the recession created a $3.6 trillion economic gap over 
the next 5 years, but the fiscal programs of the previous 
administration have left this Nation with a $2.2 trillion deficit in 
infrastructure investments. Highway and mass transit systems, airport 
and rail construction, energy and water projects, schools and public 
facilities were starved under the previous administration. As State and 
local budgets shrink, these infrastructure deficits will continue to 
increase. In West Virginia, I have seen how inadequate infrastructure 
can limit access to jobs, to health care, and to schools. It can 
strangle and suffocate local economies.
  It may seem incredible to some, but with a $2.2 trillion 
infrastructure deficit, and a $3.6 trillion contraction in the economy, 
an $838 billion stimulus is not enough. Rather than cutting back the 
stimulus package as some have suggested, we should be adding funds to 
infrastructure projects, which is why I cosponsored an amendment to the 
stimulus bill that would have further increased investments in 
transportation infrastructure. I agree with others who have said that 
the risk here is not that we may do too much. The real risk is that we 
may not do enough, fast enough, soon enough, and that jobs will 
continue to evaporate.
  I have tried to focus this stimulus where I think it can do the most 
good for the working people of this Nation, including the people of 
West Virginia. During the debate, I supported several amendments to 
limit costs, and to target spending and tax cuts toward working 
families and their communities. I fought to make sure the bill would 
create jobs quickly. Seventy eight percent of the stimulative effect 
will take place in the next 18 months--a big improvement compared to 
the House bill. I also sought to ensure that there is some oversight of 
how these funds are spent at the state and local level. I have 
supported the creation of a Recovery and Transparency Board comprised 
of inspector generals across the Federal Government, to bring to light 
wasteful and corrupt spending. Likewise, I am hopeful that this Board 
will monitor State and local management of these funds, to ensure that 
excessive or political strings are not attached, delaying this critical 
funding.
  I am sorry to see this stimulus package derisively referred to as 
wasteful, pork-barrel spending. I suspect many of these naysayers are 
not looking to create jobs, so much as they are looking to create a 
sound bite. I do not consider moneys for our Nation's roads and 
bridges, for our schools and communities, and for a safety net for the 
unemployed and uninsured to be handouts. I do not consider funding 
wasteful if it helps to ensure that state and local officials do not 
have to layoff police officers, school teachers, and fire fighters.
  This stimulus is exactly what we need to be doing. I have been 
fighting for this infrastructure funding for many years. The bill may 
not win any popularity contests, but it is still the best idea for 
helping to mitigate this

[[Page S2050]]

economic downturn. It achieves the principle goals of creating jobs, of 
helping to prevent painful and dangerous budget cuts at the State and 
local level, and of investing in the long-term growth of the U.S. 
economy. I unhesitatingly cast my vote in support of this measure.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to speak about the trade 
adjustment assistance amendment that Senator Baucus and I have 
introduced.
  It is amendment No. 404, and it is called the Trade and Globalization 
Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009.
  My colleagues are used to hearing me talk about the importance of 
trade.
  Trade creates good, well paying jobs for American workers, farmers, 
and service suppliers. Those jobs are more important than ever in this 
time of economic difficulty.
  So we need to keep working hard to open new markets for U.S. goods 
and services.
  But if we are going to engage in international trade, we need to make 
sure we are looking out for U.S. workers who are affected by foreign 
competition.
  Our trade adjustment assistance program is the primary program the 
Federal Government has for helping those workers. Unfortunately, the 
program is out of date. It isn't doing enough to help the workers who 
need it. And that is why I have joined with Senator Baucus to update 
it.
  Today's amendment is the culmination of months of hard work on the 
part of Senator Baucus and myself. And this work reflects years of 
oversight and careful thought. It is also the product of close 
collaboration and intensive negotiations with our counterparts on the 
House Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Rangel and Congressman Camp. I 
want to thank my colleagues for their cooperation and good will.
  This amendment truly is a bipartisan, bicameral product. The 
amendment would update the trade adjustment assistance program in 
important ways, so it better serves the needs of our workers in the 
globalized economy of the 21st century. I will mention some of those 
changes now, and I anticipate that Senator Baucus and I will introduce 
report language into the Record to reflect the legislative intent 
behind the provisions we have included in our amendment.
  One of the most important changes that the amendment makes is to open 
the trade adjustment assistance program to workers in the services 
sector. Those workers aren't currently eligible for trade adjustment 
assistance.
  So, if you are a customer service representative, and your job is 
outsourced to India, you are out of luck.
  That limitation makes no sense to me. Services make up almost 80 
percent of our economy, so it makes sense that service workers should 
be eligible for adjustment assistance if they are adversely impacted by 
trade. But that last point is critically important. Trade adjustment 
assistance should be made available to service workers, but only if 
they can demonstrate a causal nexus between trade and the loss of jobs.
  The amendment I introduced with Senator Baucus requires an express 
determination of such a causal nexus before service workers can be 
certified for trade adjustment assistance. I wouldn't be here 
supporting this compromise if it didn't. The same goes for 
manufacturing workers. Trade adjustment assistance is premised upon an 
adverse trade impact, and this amendment preserves that nexus. Our 
amendment fills the hole in existing law so that software developers, 
customer service reps, and other service workers will be able to seek 
the same benefits that are currently available to workers in the 
manufacturing sector, and on the same terms. That is only fair.
  We also increase the availability of training funds so that States 
can handle this expansion in eligibility and provide better training 
opportunities for displaced workers, to help them train for new 
careers. Our amendment expands the trade adjustment assistance for 
firms program to help individual firms better respond to foreign 
competition and avoid having to cut jobs to begin with. It improves the 
trade adjustment assistance for farmers program to provide targeted 
training and to help agricultural producers develop new skills and 
business plans. It creates a trade adjustment assistance for 
communities program to help entire communities respond to the pressures 
of globalization, and to help community colleges and other educational 
institutions develop new and more targeted courses to assist trade-
impacted workers. And it helps States fund caseworker time spent with 
TAA clients, so that laid-off workers will have someone to help them 
examine their options and plan next steps.
  Our amendment introduces a great deal more flexibility into the 
program, so that workers can choose between full-time and part-time 
training, or full-time work with limited wage insurance. Trade-impacted 
workers can even take advantage of training and case management 
services before they lose their jobs. Our amendment also improves the 
accountability and internal oversight of the program, at the State and 
Federal level, to provide additional assurance that taxpayer monies 
will be well-spent.
  I have already noted that this amendment is a bipartisan effort that 
reflects the work of four offices. It is a compromise in many respects. 
There are portions of the amendment that I might have done differently 
if it were solely up to me. But that is the nature of compromise. And 
the overall policy embodied in this amendment is a good one that will 
do a lot of good for a lot of Americans--in Iowa and across the United 
States. Equally important, if we enact this amendment into law, it will 
help unlock the trade agenda so we can progress with other important 
priorities. Chief among those is implementation of the Colombia trade 
agreement, which is my top trade priority. And then we need to turn to 
our other trade agreements with Panama and South Korea as well. We need 
to level the playing field so that our exporters, service suppliers, 
and farmers can increase their sales to foreign countries. It is more 
important than ever.
  We have had a social compact on trade for over 45 years.
  One side of that compact is to address the needs of trade-displaced 
workers, and we are doing that with the Baucus-Grassley amendment.
  The other side is to open up new markets for U.S. exports.
  That was a driving principle when President Kennedy established the 
trade adjustment assistance program. President Obama should hold true 
to that principle by doing everything he can to create new export 
opportunities, starting with implementation of our pending trade 
agreements. A pro-growth trade agenda should be integral to our 
economic recovery strategy.
  Now let me turn to the provisions in this amendment dealing with the 
health coverage tax credit. The health coverage tax credit was the 
creation of a bipartisan effort in 2002. It was designed to help those 
who were losing their jobs and their health coverage due to trade-
related restructuring. The health coverage tax credit represented the 
first time that the Federal Government offered assistance in the form 
of a tax credit to purchase health coverage. It was a new way of doing 
things. Instead of the government offering government-run coverage, the 
government was offering a tax credit to purchase private coverage. That 
is a good thing.
  As a new program, it had start-up challenges. And the program has 
special challenges that we don't see in the regular insurance market. 
You see, the trade adjustment assistance program is for a limited 
number of people. And it is offered just while people who have lost 
their jobs are going through retraining and finding another job. Health 
insurers do their best when they are insuring a larger group of people 
for a longer period of time. That is how insurance normally works. But 
the TAA program is the opposite.
  So this program has some special challenges to manage. And for a new 
program, I think it has managed those challenges pretty well. But there 
is always room for improvement. That is especially true for a new 
program like this one. The Government Accountability Office and the 
Internal Revenue Service have studied the health coverage tax credit 
program and offered their recommendations. The health plans have also 
offered suggestions for how to make the program work better.
  The amendment that Senator Baucus and I have worked out would make a 
number of improvements to the program. These are improvements needed

[[Page S2051]]

to make it work better for eligible workers. First, we need to make 
coverage more affordable. That is something I hope we can address in 
more comprehensive health reform. But in the meantime, this amendment 
will make coverage affordable by increasing the tax credit to 80 
percent of the cost of coverage. By providing more assistance, we can 
make private insurance options more affordable. Let's not forget that 
if we don't preserve access in the private market, many of these 
unemployed workers and their families will be forced into Medicaid. 
This amendment also makes important changes that will raise awareness 
about the program. One of the biggest barriers to enrollment is that 
people just don't know about the program. We are also going to help 
people with up-front costs during enrollment, and improve coverage for 
family members.
  As I said before, this is not a perfect program and today's changes 
are not going to make it perfect. I hope as this process moves forward, 
we can still look for ways to expand the number of coverage options for 
people that want to use the credit. We should make sure they have a 
variety of choices in the individual market. But even though today's 
changes don't do everything we would like, they represent another step 
in making this program work better for unemployed workers and their 
families.
  And I compliment Senator Baucus for his hard work and commitment to 
moving forward on these important reforms. With that, I invite my 
colleagues to join me in supporting amendment 404, the Trade and 
Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009. The reforms in this 
amendment will provide immediate benefits to workers impacted by trade 
in Iowa and across the country. Over the long term, these reforms will 
help to strengthen the global competitiveness of our workforce. And 
that translates into maintaining good-paying jobs right here in the 
United States.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, a baker once told Studs Terkel, the 
great chronicler of the American people:
  ``Work is an essential part of being alive. Your work is your 
identity. It tells you who you are . . . There's such a joy in doing 
work well.''
  This body is considering legislation about economic growth and 
recovery. It is about energy, and it is about healthcare.
  But we must never forget that we are also considering what is 
essential to Americans' lives. In our hands is a part of Americans' 
identities, and the joy and pride they get from a day's work well done.
  And when we consider jobs lost in America, we must never forget that, 
in our hands, is also the pain of lost identity, lost pride, and lost 
meaning in Americans' lives.
  Last week, Senator Grassley and I--along with Chairman Rangel and Mr. 
Camp--completed negotiations on provisions to renew and expand our 
trade adjustment assistance programs.
  Our provisions promise American workers who have lost their jobs the 
chance to get back on their feet. And with that opportunity, it offers 
Americans another shot at the dignity and joy they get from an honest 
day's work.
  Trade adjustment assistance--or ``TAA''--has been my highest trade 
priority. For over two years, I have worked with Senator Grassley and 
Chairman Rangel to realize this priority. It was a long process, and it 
was not easy.
  But I am proud to say that with their help, along with the invaluable 
support of Congressman Camp, and Senators Snowe, Bingaman, Cantwell, 
Stabenow, Rockefeller, and others, we have achieved it.
  When President Kennedy created trade adjustment assistance in 1962, 
he crafted it to reflect the needs and conditions of the American 
economy of his time.
  Our new TAA provisions will reform and expand TAA to reflect the 
needs and conditions of our economy as we know it today. This renewal 
and expansion is historic. It is the most significant expansion of the 
program since President Kennedy created it.
  And, most importantly, it will help TAA reach more Americans than 
ever before with the smart and effective services they need, when they 
need them.
  The opportunities of international trade and job-creating exports 
have never been greater. For much of the past two years, growing 
American exports were a rare bright spot in our economy.
  Yet with these opportunities also come risks. A sudden shift in 
global trade flows can send an industry reeling, taking its workers 
with it. In rural communities dependent on a single employer, the 
effect is even more sharply felt.
  In my home State of Montana, the global recession has already hit our 
mines and our lumber industry. Workers in our aluminum and paper 
products companies also suffer in this crisis.
  Trade adjustment assistance gives American workers caught in the 
crosscurrents of international trade a chance to get back on their feet 
with retraining, a healthcare tax credit, and strategic support for 
firms.
  But as important as TAA is to our workers, it has not kept up with 
our evolving economy. It remains limited in scope, limited in 
resources, and limited in its ability to deliver effective services.
  That is why the TAA expansion that Senator Grassley and I negotiated 
is so important. It addresses these limitations and makes trade 
adjustment assistance work better for far more workers.
  First, and perhaps most significantly, our new TAA provisions extend 
TAA to services workers. America remains a manufacturing powerhouse, 
but our economy has also evolved to create a vibrant and globally-
integrated services industry. Services are now nearly 80 percent of our 
economy, yet TAA's benefits are out of reach for all services workers.
  This legislation brings TAA in line with today's economy, extending 
TAA benefits to America's services industry workers, whether they are 
transportation workers, software designers, computer programmers, or 
airline maintenance technicians.
  Second, our provisions extend TAA's offshoring provisions to all 
workers regardless of the country to which that job shifts.
  Under current law, workers whose jobs shift abroad may only qualify 
for TAA if that shift is to countries with which we have a free trade 
agreement or certain other trade arrangements. But it does not cover 
eight of our top ten partners, including China, Japan, and Korea.
  This legislation does away with that geographic limitation and 
expands TAA's benefits to cover all trade with all of our partner 
countries.
  Third, our new TAA package increases training funds available to 
states by 160 percent--from $220 million to $570 million per year.
  Job retraining programs are at the heart of TAA, and have proven the 
quickest and most effective way to give workers the skills they need to 
get back on the job. Take just two recent examples from Montana.
  Wilfred Johnson lost his job after four decades in the lumber 
industry. He was 58 years old and had never before been unemployed. Mr. 
Johnson turned to local TAA administrators and with the help of TAA 
retraining funds, soon learned to operate heavy machinery. He earned 
his commercial driver's license, and started a new job with the Forest 
Service last spring.
  Daryl Blasing also lost his job at a lumber mill. With the help of 
TAA, he retrained to learn information technology skills at a community 
college. Today, Mr. Blasing monitors election software for the State of 
Montana, a job he does so well that he earned the Governor's Award for 
Excellence in Performance.
  Despite these and many similar successes around the country, workers' 
retraining needs often outpace TAA retraining resources. States 
including Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina regularly 
exhaust their annual allotment of retraining funds before the year is 
out. Our new provisions remedy that funding shortfall and will make TAA 
training as effective as it could be.
  Fourth, this reform also strengthens programs that offer American 
companies and farmers strategic assistance to keep them competitive and 
to keep their workers on the job.
  Struggling farmers will be eligible for targeted and intensive 
technical assistance under the TAA for Farmers

[[Page S2052]]

program, leading to a better business plan and the seed money to get 
that plan off the ground.
  We also more than triple the resources to back the successful TAA for 
Firms program, which partners small businesses with industry experts to 
improve their efficiency and competitiveness.
  Fifth, I have worked with Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Bingaman, and 
Grassley to devise a program to help communities struggling with the 
consequences of international trade.
  When a large employer shuts down, entire communities feel the shock. 
This amendment recognizes the community-wide effects of trade and 
offers community-wide solutions.
  Under the new TAA for Communities program, grants to technical 
colleges and public-private partnerships will help identify and invest 
in new viable and competitive industries. These small investments will 
help entire communities grow.
  Sixth, our new TAA provisions take steps to ensure trade displaced 
workers have access to health care through a workable health coverage 
tax credit program.
  Under current law, TAA-eligible workers can receive a 65 percent tax 
credit to buy certain health insurance. Our legislation will improve 
the affordability of health coverage for trade displaced workers by 
increasing the tax credit subsidy to 80 percent.
  It will also provide workers retroactive reimbursement for premium 
costs that are paid while waiting to get enrolled in the health 
program.
  Our legislation also improves coverage for spouses and dependents and 
establishes new rules to protect workers from being denied coverage 
based on pre-existing health conditions.
  Our proposal also increases transparency around the costs and 
availability of health benefits and puts stronger mechanisms in placing 
for ensuring workers have accurate and timely information about their 
health coverage options.
  There are many other aspects to our TAA package. I am introducing 
into the record a detailed description of our provisions. Senator 
Grassley and I prepared this document with Ways and Means Committee 
Chairman Rangel and Ranking Minority Member Camp.
  This document is meant to serve as the legislative history of these 
many provisions, as well as to provide the rationale for the amendments 
we propose to current law.
  Madam President, during this debate my colleagues have talked a lot 
about the promise of our economy and hope for the future.
  I too am hopeful. I am hopeful because I know that with this 
legislation, we are trying to do what is best for America.
  I am also hopeful because I believe, as Studs Terkel wrote, ``Hope 
has never trickled down. It has always sprung up.''
  It will again spring up from the Americans who work to stay 
competitive in their current jobs. And hope will spring from those 
courageous and innovative workers who retrain for new jobs.
  Our provisions to renew and expand Trade Adjustment Assistance will 
help them do that. I urge my colleagues to give it their support.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the report language printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         I. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

       The Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 
     2009 (``Act'') amends the Trade Act of 1974 (``the Trade 
     Act'') to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance (``TAA''), 
     to extend trade adjustment assistance to service workers, 
     communities, firms, and farmers, and for other purposes. This 
     document reflects the shared views of Chairman Baucus, 
     Senator Grassley, Chairman Rangel, and Congressman Camp 
     (``the Members'') on the trade-related aspects of the Act. 
     This document does not address the health coverage tax credit 
     aspects of the Act.

                      II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

           A. Part I--Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers

  1. Subpart A--Trade Adjustment Assistance for Service Sector Workers

     Extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance to Service Sector 
         and Public Agency Workers; Shifts in Production (Section 
         1701 (amending Sections 221, 222, 231, 244, and 247 of 
         the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Section 222 of the Trade Act provides trade adjustment 
     assistance to workers in a firm or an appropriate subdivision 
     of a firm if (1) a significant number or proportion of the 
     workers in the firm or subdivision have become (or are 
     threatened to become) totally or partially separated; (2) the 
     firm produces an article; and (3) the separation or threat of 
     same is due to trade with foreign countries.
       There are three ways to demonstrate the connection between 
     job separation and trade. The Secretary of Labor (``the 
     Secretary'') must determine either (1) that increased imports 
     of articles ``like or directly competitive'' with articles 
     produced by the firm have contributed importantly to the 
     separation and to an absolute decrease in the firm's sales or 
     production, or both; (2) that the workers' firm has shifted 
     its production of articles ``like or directly competitive'' 
     with articles produced by the firm to a trade agreement 
     partner of the United States or a beneficiary country under 
     the Andean Trade Preference Act, the African Growth and 
     Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 
     Act; or (3) that the firm has shifted production of such 
     articles to another country and there has been or is likely 
     to be an increase in imports of like or directly competitive 
     articles.
       Section 222 of the Trade Act also provides TAA to adversely 
     affected secondary workers. Eligible secondary workers 
     include (1) secondary workers that supply directly to another 
     firm component parts for articles that were the basis for a 
     certification of eligibility for TAA benefits; and (2) 
     downstream workers that were affected by trade with Mexico or 
     Canada.
       When the Department investigates workers' petitions, it 
     requires firms and customers to certify the questionnaires 
     that the workers' firm and the firm's customers submit. 
     Present law also authorizes the Secretary to use subpoenas to 
     obtain information in the course of its investigation of a 
     petition. The law provides for the imposition of criminal and 
     civil penalties for providing false information and failing 
     to disclose material information, but the penalties apply 
     only to petitioners.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision would amend section 222 of the Trade Act to 
     expand the availability of TAA to include workers in firms in 
     the services sector. Like workers in firms that produce 
     articles, workers in firms that supply services would be 
     eligible for TAA if a significant number or proportion of the 
     workers have become (or are threatened to become) totally or 
     partially separated, and if increased imports of services 
     ``contributed importantly'' to the workers' separation or 
     threat of separation.
       As with articles, there would be three ways for service 
     sector workers to demonstrate that they are eligible for TAA. 
     First, TAA would be available if increased imports of 
     services like or directly competitive with services supplied 
     by the firm have contributed importantly to the separation 
     and to an absolute decrease in the firm's sales or 
     production, or both. Second, TAA would be available in 
     ``shift in supply'' (``service relocation'') scenarios, if 
     the workers' firm or subdivision established a facility in a 
     foreign country to supply services like or directly 
     competitive with the services supplied by the trade-impacted 
     workers. Third, TAA would be available in ``foreign 
     contracting'' scenarios, if the workers' firm or subdivision 
     acquired from a service supplier in a foreign country 
     services like or directly competitive with the services that 
     the trade-impacted workers had supplied. In each scenario, 
     the relevant activity would need to have contributed 
     importantly to the workers' separation or threat of 
     separation.
       The provision also expands the ``shift in production'' 
     prong of present law by eliminating the requirement in 
     section 222 that the shift be to a trade agreement partner of 
     the United States or a country that benefits from a 
     unilateral preference program. Under the modified provision, 
     if workers are separated because their firm shifts production 
     from a domestic facility to any foreign country, the 
     separated workers would potentially be eligible for TAA. 
     Additionally, there would be no requirement to demonstrate 
     separately that the shift was accompanied by an increase of 
     imports of products like or directly competitive with those 
     produced by the workers' firm or subdivision.
       The provision also amends section 222 to make workers at 
     public agencies eligible for TAA. Under the modified 
     provision, if a public agency acquires services from a 
     foreign country that are like or directly competitive with 
     the services that the public agency supplies, and if the 
     acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' 
     separation or threat thereof, the workers would be able to 
     seek TAA benefits.
       The provision also amends section 222 to expand the 
     universe of adversely affected secondary workers that could 
     be eligible for TAA. First, the provision adds firms that 
     supply testing, packaging, maintenance, and transportation 
     services to the list of downstream producers whose workers 
     potentially are eligible for TAA. Second, workers at firms 
     that supply services used in the production of articles or in 
     the supply of services would also become potentially eligible 
     for benefits. Third, the provision permits downstream 
     producers to be eligible for TAA if the primary firm's 
     certification is linked to trade with any country, not just 
     Canada or Mexico.

[[Page S2053]]

       The provision requires the Secretary to obtain information 
     that the Secretary determines necessary to make 
     certifications from workers' firms or customers of workers' 
     firms through questionnaires and in such other manner as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate. The provision also permits 
     the Secretary to seek additional information from other 
     sources, including (1) officials or employees of the workers' 
     firm; (2) officials of customers of the firm; (3) officials 
     of unions or other duly recognized representatives of the 
     petitioning workers; and (4) one-stop operators. The 
     provision states that the Secretary shall require a firm or 
     customer to certify all information obtained through 
     questionnaires, as well as other information that the 
     Secretary relies upon in making a determination under section 
     223, unless the Secretary has a reasonable basis for 
     determining that the information is accurate and complete.
       The provision states that the Secretary shall require a 
     worker's firm or a customer of a worker's firm to provide 
     information by subpoena if the firm or customer fails to 
     provide the information within 20 days, unless the firm or 
     customer demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that 
     the firm or customer will provide the information in a 
     reasonable period of time. The Secretary retains the 
     discretion to issue a subpoena sooner than 20 days if 
     necessary. The provision also establishes standards for the 
     protection of confidential business information submitted in 
     response to a request made by the Secretary.
       The provision amends the penalties provision in section 244 
     of the Trade Act to cover individuals, including individuals 
     who are employed by firms and customers, who provide 
     information during an investigation of a worker's petition.
       Finally, the provision amends section 247 of the Trade Act 
     to add definitions for certain key terms and makes various 
     conforming changes to sections 221 and 222.


                           Reasons for Change

       Most service sector workers presently are ineligible for 
     TAA benefits because of a statutory requirement that the 
     workers must have been employed by a firm that produces an 
     ``article.'' Of the 800 TAA petitions denied in FY2006, 
     almost half were denied for this reason. Most of the denied 
     service-related petitions came from two service industries: 
     business services (primarily computer-related) and airport-
     related services (e.g., aircraft maintenance). In April 2006, 
     the Department of Labor issued a regulation expanding TAA 
     eligibility to software workers that partially, but not 
     fully, addresses the service worker coverage issue. See GAO 
     Report 07-702. The provision fully addresses the issue by 
     making service sector workers eligible for TAA on equivalent 
     terms to workers at firms that produce articles.
       The provision expands the ``shift in production'' prong of 
     present law for similar reasons. Under present law, a worker 
     whose firm relocates to China is not necessarily eligible for 
     TAA; such worker must also show that the relocation to China 
     will result in increased imports into the United States. In 
     contrast, a worker whose firm relocates to a country with 
     which the United States has a trade agreement (e.g., Mexico, 
     Israel, Chile) does not need to show increased imports. The 
     provision eliminates this disparate treatment by making TAA 
     benefits available in both scenarios on the same terms.
       Present law also fails to cover foreign contracting 
     scenarios, where a company closes a domestic operation and 
     contracts with a company in a foreign country for the goods 
     or services that had been produced in the United States. For 
     example, if a U.S. airline lays off a number of its U.S.-
     based maintenance personnel and contracts with an independent 
     aircraft maintenance company in a foreign country, the laid 
     off personnel are not covered under present law, even if they 
     lost their jobs because of foreign competition. The 
     proponents believe such workers should be potentially 
     eligible for TAA benefits.
       Similarly, the proponents believe that workers who supply 
     services at public agencies should be treated the same as 
     their private-sector counterparts: if such workers are laid 
     off because their employer contracts with a supplier in a 
     foreign country for the services that the workers had 
     supplied, the workers should be able to seek TAA benefits.
       The provision provides that in cases involving production 
     or service relocation or foreign contracting, a group of 
     workers (including workers in a public agency) may be 
     certified as eligible for adjustment assistance if the shift 
     ``contributed importantly'' to such workers' separation or 
     threat of separation. This requirement is identical to the 
     existing causal link requirement in section 
     222(a)(2)(A)(iii), which establishes the criteria for 
     certifying workers on the basis of ``increased imports.''
       The proponents understand that the Department of Labor has 
     interpreted the ``contributed importantly'' requirement in 
     section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) to mean that imports must have been 
     a factor in the layoffs or threat thereof. Or, in other 
     words, under present law the Secretary of Labor will certify 
     a group of workers as eligible for assistance if the facts 
     demonstrate a causal nexus between increased imports and the 
     workers' separation or threat thereof. The proponents approve 
     of the Department's interpretation of the ``contributed 
     importantly'' requirement and expect that the Department will 
     continue to apply it in future cases involving increased 
     imports.
       Similarly, the proponents also understand that the existing 
     language in section 222(a)(2)(B) addressing production 
     relocation contains an implicit causation requirement. Thus, 
     the Department has required production relocation under 
     section 222(a)(2)(B) to be a factor in the workers' 
     separation or threat thereof. The provision makes the 
     requirement explicit.
       The proponents emphasize that by making the ``contributed 
     importantly'' requirement in section 222(a)(2)(B) explicit, 
     no change in the Department's administration of cases 
     involving production relocation is intended. The proponents 
     expect that this change in section 222 would not affect the 
     outcomes that the Department has been reaching under present 
     law in such cases, and will not alter outcomes in future 
     cases. Thus, as has been the case, if the Department finds 
     that production relocation was a factor in the layoff (or 
     threat thereof) of a group of workers in the United States, 
     the proponents expect that the Secretary will certify such 
     workers as eligible for adjustment assistance.
       Finally, with respect to certifications involving 
     production or service relocations or foreign contracting, the 
     proponents recognize that there may be delays in time between 
     when the domestic layoffs (or threat of layoffs) occur, and 
     when the production or service relocation or foreign 
     contracting occurs. The proponents intend that the Department 
     of Labor certify petitions where there is credible evidence 
     that production or service relocation or foreign contracting 
     will occur, and when the other requirements of the statute 
     are met. Such evidence could include the conclusion of a 
     contract relating to foreign production of the article, 
     supply of services, or acquisition of the article or service 
     at issue; the construction, purchase, or renting of foreign 
     facilities for the production of the article, supply of the 
     service, or acquisition of the article or service at issue; 
     or certified statements by a duly authorized representative 
     at the workers' firm that the firm intends to engage in 
     production or service relocation or foreign contracting.
       The proponents are aware of concerns that the Secretary may 
     rely on inaccurate information in making its determinations, 
     including when denying certification of petitions. The 
     provision addresses these concerns by requiring the Secretary 
     to obtain certifications of all information obtained from a 
     firm or customer through questionnaires as well as other 
     information from a firm or customer that the Secretary relies 
     upon in making a determination under section 223, unless the 
     Secretary has a reasonable basis for determining that the 
     information is accurate and complete.
       The proponents are also aware of concerns that some firms 
     and customers fail to respond to the Secretary's requests for 
     information or provide inaccurate or incomplete information. 
     The subpoena, confidentiality of information, and penalty 
     language included in this provision are designed to address 
     these problems.
       The provision would also apply if the Secretary needs to 
     obtain information from a customer's customer, such as in an 
     investigation involving component part suppliers.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Group Eligibility--Component Parts (Section 1701 (amending 
         Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Under present law, U.S. suppliers of inputs (i.e., 
     component parts) may be certified for TAA benefits only 
     pursuant to the secondary workers provision of section 
     222(b), which requires that the downstream producer have 
     employed a group of workers that received TAA certification. 
     Thus, for example, domestic producers of taconite have been 
     unable to obtain certification for TAA benefits when 
     downstream producers of steel slab have not obtained 
     certification.
       Additionally, U.S. suppliers of inputs have been unable to 
     obtain certification for TAA benefits in situations in which 
     there is a shift in imports from articles incorporating their 
     inputs to articles incorporating inputs produced outside the 
     United States.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision allows for the certification of workers in a 
     firm when imports of the finished article incorporating 
     inputs produced outside the United States that are like or 
     directly competitive with imports of the finished article 
     produced using U.S. inputs have increased and the firm has 
     met the other criteria for certification, including a 
     significant number of workers being totally or partially 
     separated, a decrease in sales or production, and the 
     increase in imports has contributed importantly to the 
     workers' separation.
       For example, under the new provision, workers in a U.S. 
     fabric plant may be certified if the U.S. firm sold fabric to 
     a Honduran apparel manufacturer for production of apparel 
     subsequently imported into the United States and (1) the 
     Honduran apparel manufacturer ceased purchasing, or decreased 
     its purchasing, of fabric from the U.S. producer and, 
     instead, used fabric from another country; or (2) imports of 
     apparel from another country using non-U.S. fabric that are 
     like or directly competitive with imports of Honduran apparel 
     using U.S. fabric have increased.

[[Page S2054]]

       Prior to certification, the Department of Labor would also 
     have to determine that the firm met the other statutory 
     requirements for certification, including that a significant 
     number of workers had been totally or partially separated, or 
     are threatened to become totally or partially separated, the 
     sales or production of the petitioning fabric firm had 
     decreased, and the increased imports of apparel using non-
     U.S. fabric had contributed importantly to that decrease and 
     to the workers' separation or threat thereof.
       Likewise, workers in a U.S. picture tube manufacturing 
     plant that sells picture tubes to a Mexican television 
     manufacturer for production of televisions subsequently 
     imported into the United States would be certified under 
     section 222 if the U.S. manufacturer's sales or production of 
     picture tubes decreased and (1) the manufacturer of 
     televisions located in Mexico switched to picture tubes 
     produced in another country; or (2) imports of televisions 
     from another country using non-U.S. picture tubes that are 
     like or directly competitive with imports of Mexican 
     televisions using U.S. picture tubes have increased.
       As in the apparel example above, prior to certification, 
     the Department of Labor would also have to determine that the 
     picture tube firm met the other statutory requirements for 
     certification, including that a significant number of workers 
     had been totally or partially separated, or are threatened to 
     become totally or partially separated, the sales or 
     production of the petitioning picture tube firm had 
     decreased, and the increased imports of televisions using 
     non-U.S. picture tubes had contributed importantly to that 
     decrease and to the workers' separation or threat thereof.


                           Reasons for Change

       Section 222(a) is being amended to provide improved TAA 
     coverage for U.S. suppliers of inputs, and to address 
     situations where suppliers of component parts have been 
     unable to obtain certification for TAA benefits because of 
     gaps in coverage under present law.
       The amended language is broad enough to encompass both the 
     situation in which the input producer's customer switches to 
     inputs produced outside the United States, and the situation 
     in which the input producer's customer is displaced by a 
     third country producer, because both situations may equally 
     impact the sales or production of the domestic input 
     producer.
       Additionally, for purposes of section 
     222(a)(2)(A)(ii)(III), as in other instances, when company-
     specific data is unavailable, the Secretary may reasonably 
     rely on such aggregate data or such other information as the 
     Secretary deems appropriate.
       As reflected in the examples above, the proponents intend 
     that the Secretary of Labor should interpret the term 
     component parts, as used in section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii)(III), 
     flexibly. For example, the proponents intend that uncut 
     fabric would be considered to be a component part of apparel 
     for purposes of this provision, even though, for purposes of 
     other trade laws, U.S. Customs and Border Protection might 
     not consider such fabric to be a component part.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Separate Basis for Certification (Section 1702 (amending 
         Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       There is no provision in present law.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision amends section 222(c) of the Trade Act by 
     providing that a petition filed under section 221 of the 
     Trade Act on behalf of a group of workers in a firm, or 
     appropriate subdivision of a firm, meets the requirements of 
     subsection 222(a) of the Trade Act if the firm is publicly 
     identified by name by the U.S. International Trade Commission 
     (``ITC'') as a member of a domestic industry in (1) an 
     affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof 
     in a global safeguard investigation under section 202(b)(1) 
     of the Trade Act; (2) an affirmative determination of market 
     disruption or threat thereof in a China safeguard 
     investigation under section 421(b)(1) of the Trade Act; or 
     (3) an affirmative final determination of material injury or 
     threat thereof in an antidumping or countervailing duty 
     investigation under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of 
     the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 
     1673d(b)(1)(A)), but only if the petition is filed within 1 
     year of the date that notice of the affirmative ITC 
     determination is published in the Federal Register (or, in 
     the case of a global safeguard investigation under section 
     202(b)(1), a summary of the report submitted to the President 
     by the ITC under section 202(f)(1) is published in the 
     Federal Register under section 202(f)(3)) and the workers on 
     whose behalf such petition was filed have become totally or 
     partially separated from such workers' firm within either 
     that 1-year period or the 1-year period preceding the date of 
     such publication.


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents note that the provision allows workers in 
     firms publicly identified by name in certain ITC 
     investigations to be eligible for adjustment assistance on 
     the basis of an affirmative injury determination by the ITC 
     under certain circumstances, and without an additional 
     determination by the Secretary of Labor that either increased 
     imports of a like or directly competitive article contributed 
     importantly to such workers' separation or threat of 
     separation (and to an absolute decline in the sales or 
     production, or both, of such workers' firm or subdivision), 
     or that a shift in production of articles contributed 
     importantly to such workers' separation or threat of 
     separation.
       In order for workers to avail themselves of this provision, 
     the petition must be filed with the Secretary (and with the 
     Governor of the State in which such workers' firm or 
     subdivision is located) within 1 year of the date of 
     publication in the Federal Register of the applicable notice 
     from the ITC and the workers on whose behalf such petition 
     was filed must have become totally or partially separated 
     from such workers' firm within either that 1-year period or 
     the 1-year period preceding such date of publication.
       If a petition is filed on behalf of such workers more than 
     1 year after the date that the applicable notice from the ITC 
     is published in the Federal Register, it will remain 
     necessary for the Secretary of Labor to investigate the 
     petition and determine that the statutory criteria for 
     certifying such workers in section 222 are satisfied.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Determinations by the Secretary of Labor (Section 1703 
         (amending Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       The Secretary is required to investigate petitions filed by 
     workers and determine whether such workers are eligible for 
     TAA benefits. A summary of such group eligibility 
     determination, together with the Secretary's reasons for 
     making the determination, must be promptly published in the 
     Federal Register. Similarly, a termination of a 
     certification, together with the Secretary's reasons for the 
     termination, must be promptly published in the Federal 
     Register.


                        Explanation of Provision

       This section requires the Secretary to publish (1) a 
     summary of a group eligibility determination, together with 
     the Secretary's reasons for the determination; and (2) a 
     certification termination, together with the Secretary's 
     reasons for the termination, promptly on the Department's 
     website (as well as in the Federal Register). The section 
     also requires the Secretary to establish standards for 
     investigating petitions, and criteria for making 
     determinations. Moreover, the Secretary is required to 
     consult with the Senate Committee on Finance (``Senate 
     Finance Committee'') and the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives (``House Committee on Ways and 
     Means'') 90 days prior to issuing a final rule on the 
     standards.


                           Reasons for Change

       To improve accountability, transparency, and public access 
     to this information, the Secretary should be required to post 
     (1) a summary of a group eligibility determination, together 
     with the Secretary's reasons for the determination; and (2) a 
     certification termination, together with the Secretary's 
     reasons for the termination, promptly on the Department's 
     website (as well as in the Federal Register). The Secretary 
     also should have objective and transparent standards for 
     investigating petitions, and criteria for the basis on which 
     an eligibility determination is made. The Secretary should 
     consult with Senate Finance and House Ways and Means to 
     ensure the intent of Congress is accurately reflected in such 
     standards.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Monitoring and Reporting Relating to Service Sector (Section 
         1704 (amending Section 282 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Present law requires the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor 
     to establish and maintain a program to monitor imports of 
     articles into the United States, including (1) information 
     concerning changes in import volume; (2) impacts on domestic 
     production; and (3) impacts on domestic employment in 
     industries producing like or competitive products. Summaries 
     must be provided to the Adjustment Assistance Coordinating 
     Committee, the ITC, and Congress.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision is renamed ``Trade Monitoring and Data 
     Collection.'' The provision requires the Secretaries of 
     Commerce and Labor to monitor imports of services (in 
     addition to articles). To address data limitations, the 
     provision requires the Secretary of Labor, not later than 90 
     days after enactment, to collect data on impacted service 
     workers (by State, industry, and cause). Finally, it requires 
     the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Labor, to report to Congress, not later than one year 
     after enactment, on ways to improve the timeliness and 
     coverage of data regarding trade in services.


                           Reasons for Change

       Existing data on trade in services are sparse. Because of 
     the increases in trade in services, the proponents believe 
     that it is critical that the government collect data on 
     imports of services and the impact of these imports on U.S. 
     workers. Such information

[[Page S2055]]

     will be useful when considering any further refinement of TAA 
     that Congress may contemplate. More generally, the additional 
     data will give U.S. businesses and workers insight into trade 
     in services, helping them better compete in the global 
     marketplace.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  2. Subpart B--Industry Notifications Following Certain Affirmative 
                             Determinations

     Notifications following certain affirmative determinations 
         (Section 1711 (amending Section 224 of the Trade Act of 
         1974))


                              Present Law

       Present law includes a provision requiring the ITC to 
     notify the Secretary of Labor when it begins a section 201 
     global safeguard investigation. The Secretary must then begin 
     an investigation of (1) the number of workers in the relevant 
     domestic industry; and (2) whether TAA will help such workers 
     adjust to import competition. The Secretary of Labor must 
     submit a report to the President within 15 days of the ITC's 
     section 201 determination. The Secretary's report must be 
     made public and a summary printed in the Federal Register.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision expands the notification requirement to 
     instruct the ITC to notify the Secretary of Labor and the 
     Secretary of Commerce, or the Secretary of Agriculture when 
     dealing with agricultural commodities, when it issues an 
     affirmative determination of injury or threat thereof under 
     sections 202 or 421 of the Trade Act, an affirmative 
     safeguard determination under a U.S. trade agreement, or an 
     affirmative determination in a countervailing duty or dumping 
     investigation under sections 705 or 735 of the Tariff Act of 
     1930. Additionally, the provision requires the President to 
     notify the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce upon making an 
     affirmative determination in a safeguard investigation 
     relating to textile and apparel articles. Whenever an injury 
     determination is made, the Secretary of Labor must notify 
     employers, workers, and unions of firms covered by the 
     determination of the workers' potential eligibility for TAA 
     benefits and provide them with assistance in filing 
     petitions. Similarly, the Secretary of Commerce must notify 
     firms covered by the determination of their potential 
     eligibility for TAA for Firms and provide them with 
     assistance in filing petitions, and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture must do the same for investigations involving 
     agricultural commodities.


                           Reasons for Change

       A significant hurdle to ensuring that workers and firms 
     avail themselves of TAA benefits is the lack of awareness 
     about the program. In situations like these, where the ITC 
     has made a determination that a domestic industry has been 
     injured as a result of trade, giving notice to the workers 
     and firms in that industry of TAA's potential benefits is 
     warranted.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Notification to Secretary of Commerce (Section 1712 (amending 
         Section 225 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Under present law, the Secretary of Labor must provide 
     workers with information about TAA and provide whatever 
     assistance is necessary to help petitioners apply for TAA. 
     The Secretary must also reach out to State Vocational 
     Education Boards and their equivalent agencies, as well as 
     other public and private institutions, about affirmative 
     group certification determinations and projections of 
     training needs.
       The Secretary must also notify each worker who the State 
     has reason to believe is covered by a group certification in 
     writing via U.S. Mail of the benefits available under TAA. If 
     the worker lost his job before group certification, then the 
     notice occurs at the time of certification. If the worker 
     lost her job after group certification, then the notice 
     occurs at the time the worker loses her job. The Secretary 
     must also publish notice in the newspapers circulating in the 
     area where the workers reside.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision requires the Secretary of Labor, upon issuing 
     a certification, to notify the Secretary of Commerce of the 
     identity of the firms covered by a certification.


                           Reasons for Change

       Firms employing workers certified as eligible for TAA 
     benefits may not be aware that they may be eligible for 
     assistance under the TAA for Firms program. Requiring the 
     Secretary of Labor to notify the Secretary of Commerce when 
     workers at a firm are certified as TAA eligible will help put 
     these firms on notice of their potential TAA for Firms 
     eligibility.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.

                     3. Subpart C--Program Benefits

     Qualifying requirements for workers (Section 1721 (amending 
         Section 231 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Present law authorizes a worker to receive TAA income 
     support (known as ``Trade Readjustment Allowance'' or 
     ``TRA'') for weeks of unemployment that begin 60 days after 
     the date of filing the petition on which certification was 
     granted.
       To qualify for TAA benefits, a worker must have (1) lost 
     his job on or after the trade impact date identified in the 
     certification, and within two years of the date of the 
     certification determination; (2) been employed by the TAA 
     certified firm for at least 26 of the 52 weeks preceding the 
     layoff; and (3) earned at least $30 or more a week in that 
     employment.
       A worker must qualify for, and exhaust, his State 
     unemployment compensation (``UC'') benefits before receiving 
     a weekly TRA.
       Further, to receive TRA, a worker must be enrolled in an 
     approved training program by the later of 8 weeks after the 
     TAA petition was certified, or 16 weeks after job loss (the 
     ``8/16'' deadline). The 8/16 deadline can be extended in 
     certain limited circumstances. Workers may also receive 
     limited waivers of the 8/16 training enrollment deadline.
       Present law provides for waivers in the following 
     circumstances: (1) the worker has been or will be recalled by 
     the firm; (2) the worker possesses marketable skills; (3) the 
     worker is within 2 years of retirement; (4) the worker cannot 
     participate in training because of health reasons; (5) 
     training enrollment is unavailable; or (6) training is not 
     reasonably available to the worker (nothing suitable, no 
     reasonable cost, no training funds).
       Waivers last 6 months, unless the Secretary determines 
     otherwise, and will be revoked if the basis for the waiver no 
     longer exists. States have the authority to issue waivers. By 
     regulation, State and local agencies must ``review'' the 
     waivers every thirty days.
       If a worker fails to begin training or has stopped 
     participating in training without justifiable cause or if the 
     worker's waiver is revoked, the worker will receive no income 
     support until the worker begins or resumes training.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision amends existing law to change the date on 
     which a worker can receive TAA income support from 60 days 
     from the date of the petition to the date of certification.
       The provision strikes the 8/16 rule and extends the 
     deadline for trade-impacted workers. If a worker lost his job 
     before the certification, then the worker has 26 weeks from 
     the date of certification to enroll in training. If the 
     worker lost his job after certification, he has 26 weeks from 
     the date he lost his job to enroll in training.
       The provision also gives the Secretary the authority to 
     waive the new 26 week training enrollment deadline if a 
     worker was not given timely notice of the deadline.
       The provision clarifies that the ``marketable skills'' 
     training waiver may apply to workers who have post-graduate 
     degrees from accredited institutions of higher education.
       The provision requires the State to review training waivers 
     3 months after such waiver is issued, and every month 
     thereafter.


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents believe that the 60-day rule makes little 
     sense and leads to the following scenario: a worker laid off 
     well before certification could exhaust his unemployment 
     insurance and yet have to wait to receive the trade 
     readjustment assistance to which the worker was otherwise 
     entitled.
       The Government Accountability Office, the Department of 
     Labor, the states, and workers' advocacy groups have 
     criticized the 8/16 deadline as being too short. First, these 
     deadlines often occur while the worker is still on 
     traditional UI (most workers receive up to 26 weeks of State 
     UI compensation). During those 26 weeks, most workers are 
     actively engaged in a job search and are not focused on 
     retraining. Forcing workers to enroll in training at such an 
     early stage can discourage active job search. Second, 
     typically, a worker decides to consider training only after 
     an extended period of unsuccessful job searching. Under 
     present law, workers are only beginning to consider training 
     options close to the 8/16 deadline, and often make hurried 
     decisions about training merely to preserve their TAA 
     eligibility. Third, when large numbers of certified workers 
     are laid off all at once, it can be difficult for TAA 
     administrators to perform adequate training assessments and 
     meet the 8/16 deadline. See GAO Report 04-1012. Therefore, 
     extending the enrollment deadlines to the later of 26 weeks 
     after layoff or certification would provide a reasonable 
     period for a worker to search for employment and consider 
     training options, as well as for the State to assess workers 
     and meet the enrollment deadlines.
       While recognizing the necessity of waivers in certain 
     circumstances, states have identified the monthly review of 
     waivers to be burdensome. Many states have complained that 
     processing the sheer volume of waivers requires significant 
     administrative time and cost. For example, according to GAO, 
     59,375 waivers were issued in 2005 (and 60,948 in 2004). The 
     new requirement that waivers be reviewed initially three 
     months rather than one month after they are issued reduces 
     the administrative burden while continuing to provide for 
     appropriate review, thus allowing the State to ensure the 
     worker continues to

[[Page S2056]]

     qualify for the waiver. The provision does not require a 
     review of waivers issued on the basis that an adversely 
     affected worker is within two years of being eligible for 
     Social Security benefits or a private pension. The status of 
     such workers is unlikely to change and thus, automatic review 
     of their waivers is a waste of resources. States still retain 
     the discretion to review such waivers if circumstances 
     warrant.
       When a worker has failed to meet the training enrollment 
     deadline through no fault of his own, the proponents believe 
     that there should be redress. Under present law, there is 
     none. The Department of Labor has acknowledged that this is a 
     problem.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Weekly amounts (Section 1722 (amending Section 232 of the 
         Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       TRA is the income support that workers receive weekly. It 
     is equal to the worker's weekly UI benefit. TRA is divided 
     into two main periods: ``Basic TRA'' and ``Additional TRA.''
       Under present law, because of the operation of State UI 
     laws, workers who are in training and working part-time run 
     the risk of resetting their UI benefits (and their TRA 
     benefit) at the lower part-time level which would leave them 
     with insufficient income support to continue with training.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision amends existing law to (1) disregard, for 
     purposes of determining a worker's weekly TRA amount, 
     earnings from a week of work equal to or less than the 
     worker's most recent unemployment insurance benefits where 
     the worker is working part-time and participating in full-
     time training; and (2) ensure that workers will retain the 
     amount of income support provided initially under TRA even if 
     a new UI benefit period (with a lower weekly amount) is 
     established due to the worker obtaining part-time or short-
     term full-time employment.


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents believe that the disincentive to combining 
     full-time training and part-time work needs to be removed so 
     that workers who might not otherwise be in training, but for 
     the additional income they earn working part-time, are not 
     excluded from the program.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Limitations on Trade Readjustment Allowances; Allowances for 
         Extended Training and Breaks in Training (Section 1723 
         (amending Section 233(a) of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Basic TRA is available for 52 weeks minus the number of 
     weeks of unemployment insurance for which the worker was 
     eligible (usually 26 weeks). Basic TRA must be used within 
     104 weeks after the worker lost his job (130 weeks for 
     workers requiring remedial training). Any Basic TRA not used 
     in that period is foregone.
       Additional TRA is available for up to 52 more weeks if the 
     worker is enrolled in and participating in training. The 
     worker receives Additional TRA only for weeks in training. A 
     worker on an approved break in training of 30 days or less is 
     considered to be participating in training and therefore 
     eligible for TRA during that period. Additional TRA must 
     otherwise be used over a consecutive period (e.g., 52 
     consecutive weeks).
       Participation in remedial training makes a worker eligible 
     for up to 26 more weeks of TRA.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision increases the number of weeks for which a 
     worker can receive Additional TRA from 52 to 78 and expands 
     the time within which a worker can receive such Additional 
     TRA from 52 weeks to 91 weeks.


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents believe that the program must provide 
     incentives for eligible workers to participate in long term 
     training, such as a two-year Associate's degree, a nursing 
     certification, or completion of a four-year degree (if that 
     four-year degree was previously initiated or if the worker 
     will complete it using non-TAA funds).
       Typically, workers cannot participate in a training program 
     without TAA income support. Thus, because many workers 
     exhaust at least some of their basic TRA while they seek 
     another job instead of beginning training, they are limited 
     to shorter-term training options, both practically and 
     because training approvals are usually tied to the period of 
     TRA eligibility. The purpose of the additional 26 weeks of 
     income support, for a total of 78 weeks of additional TRA, is 
     to provide an opportunity for workers to engage in long term 
     training that might not have otherwise been a viable option.
       The proponents note that the Department of Labor's practice 
     is to approve, before training begins, a training program 
     consisting of a course or related group of courses designed 
     for an individual to meet a specific occupational goal. 20 
     CFR 617.22(f)(3)(i). Nothing in this section is intended to 
     change current Department of Labor practice. The additional 
     26 weeks of income support are intended to provide more 
     options for long term training at the time when this 
     individual training program is designed and approved.
       In short, the new, additional income support is available 
     only for workers in long term training.
       The proponents note that, at the same time, it is not their 
     intent to limit the Secretary's ability, in certain, limited 
     circumstances, to modify a worker's training program where 
     the Secretary determines that the current training program is 
     no longer appropriate for the individual.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Special Rules for Calculation of Eligibility Period (Section 
         1724 (amending Section 233 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       There is no provision in present law.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision states that periods during which an 
     administrative or judicial appeal of a negative determination 
     is pending will not be counted when calculating a worker's 
     eligibility for TRA. Moreover, the provision also grants 
     justifiable cause authority to the Secretary to extend 
     certain applicable deadlines concerning receipt of Basic and 
     Additional TRA. Further, the provision allows workers called 
     up for active duty military or full-time National Guard 
     service to restart the TAA enrollment process after 
     completion of such service.
       The provision also strikes the 210 day rule, which mandates 
     that a worker is not eligible for additional TRA payments if 
     the worker has not applied for training 210 days from 
     certification or job loss, whichever is later.


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents believe that tolling of deadlines is 
     necessary; otherwise judicial relief obtained from a 
     successful court challenge would be meaningless, as the 
     decision of the court will inevitably take place after the 
     TAA program eligibility deadlines have passed. The Department 
     of Labor provides for similar tolling in its present and 
     proposed regulations.
       Similarly, the proponents believe that affording the 
     Secretary flexibility in instances where a worker is 
     ineligible through no fault of her own is consistent with the 
     spirit of the program and will help ensure that workers get 
     the retraining they need. The amendment permits the Secretary 
     to extend the periods during which trade readjustment 
     allowances may be paid to an individual if there is 
     justifiable cause. The provision does not increase the amount 
     of such allowances that are payable. The proponents intend 
     that the justifiable cause extension should allow the 
     Secretary equitable authority to address unforeseen 
     circumstances, such as a health emergency.
       The 210 day deadline is superseded by the 8/16 deadline in 
     current law, the new 26/26 enrollment deadlines under these 
     amendments, and the requirement that a worker be in training 
     to receive additional TRA.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Application of State Laws and Regulations on Good Cause for 
         Waiver of Time Limits or Late Filing of Claims (Section 
         1725 (amending Section 234 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       A State's unemployment insurance laws apply to a worker's 
     claims for TRA.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision makes a State's ``good cause'' law, 
     regulations, policies, and practices applicable when the 
     State is making determinations concerning a worker's claim 
     for TRA or other adjustment assistance.


                           Reasons for Change

       Most States have ``good cause'' laws allowing the waiver of 
     a statutory deadline when the deadline was missed because of 
     agency error or for other reasons where the claimant was not 
     at fault. These good cause laws apply to administration of 
     State UI laws. The Department of Labor, by regulation, has 
     precluded application of State good cause laws to TAA. This 
     prohibition unjustifiably penalizes workers who miss a 
     deadline through no fault of their own.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Employment and Case Management Services; Administrative 
         Expenses and Employment and Case Management Services 
         (Sections 1726 and 1727 (amending Section 235 of the 
         Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Present law requires the Secretary of Labor to make ``every 
     reasonable effort'' to secure services for affected workers 
     covered by a certification including ``counseling, testing, 
     and placement services'' and ``[s]upportive and other 
     services provided for under any other Federal law,'' 
     including WIA one-stop services. Typically, the Secretary 
     provides these services through agreements with the States.

[[Page S2057]]

                        Explanation of Provision

       The provisions require the Secretary and the States to, 
     among other things (1) perform comprehensive and specialized 
     assessments of enrollees' skill levels and needs; (2) develop 
     individual employment plans for each impacted worker; and (3) 
     provide enrollees with (a) information on available training 
     and how to apply for such training, (b) information on how to 
     apply for financial aid, (c) information on how to apply for 
     such training, (d) short-term prevocational services, (e) 
     individual career counseling, (f) employment statistics 
     information, and (g) information on the availability of 
     supportive services.
       The provision requires the Secretary, either directly or 
     through the States (through cooperating agreements), to make 
     the employment and case management services described in 
     section 235 available to TAA eligible workers. TAA eligible 
     workers are not required to accept or participate in such 
     services, however, if they choose not to do so.
       These provisions provide for each State to receive funds 
     equal to 15 percent of its training funding allocation on top 
     of its training fund allocation. Not more than two-thirds of 
     these additional funds may be used to cover administrative 
     expenses, and not less than one-third of such funds may be 
     used for the purpose of providing employment and case 
     management services, as defined under section 235. Finally, 
     the section provides for an additional $350,000 to be 
     provided to each State annually for the purpose of providing 
     employment and case management services. With respect to 
     these latter funds, States may decline or otherwise return 
     such funds to the Secretary.


                           Reasons for Change

       States incur costs to administer the TAA program, including 
     for processing applications and providing employment and case 
     management services. While appropriators customarily provide 
     the Department of Labor with administrative funds equal to 15 
     percent of the total training funds for disbursement to the 
     States, the proponents believe that this practice should be 
     codified, with the changes discussed above.
       The proponents believe that the employment services and 
     case management funding provided for in this section should 
     be in addition to, and not offset, any funds that the State 
     would otherwise receive under WIA or any other program.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Training Funding (Section 1728 (amending Section 236 of the 
         Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       The total amount of annual training funding provided for 
     under present law is $220,000,000. During the year, if the 
     Secretary determines that there is inadequate funding to meet 
     the demand for training, the Secretary has the authority to 
     decide how to apportion the remaining funds to the States.
       Based on internal department policy, at the beginning of 
     each fiscal year, the Department of Labor allocates 75 
     percent of the training funds to States based on each State's 
     training expenditures and the average number of training 
     participants over the previous 2\1/2\ years. The previous 
     year's allocation serves as a floor. The Department of Labor 
     also has a ``hold harmless'' policy that ensures that each 
     State's initial allocation can be no less than 85 percent of 
     its initial allocation in the previous year. The Department 
     of Labor holds the remaining 25 percent in reserve to 
     distribute to States throughout the year according to need; 
     most of the remaining funds are disbursed at the end of the 
     fiscal year. States have 3 years to spend their federal 
     funds. If the funds are not spent, the money reverts back to 
     the General Treasury.
       Under present law, the Secretary shall approve training if 
     (1) there is no suitable employment; (2) the worker would 
     benefit from appropriate training; (3) there is a reasonable 
     expectation of employment following training (although not 
     necessarily immediately available employment); (4) the 
     approved training is reasonably available to the worker; (5) 
     the worker is qualified for the training; and (6) training is 
     suitable and available at a reasonable cost. ``Insofar as 
     possible,'' the Secretary is supposed to ensure the provision 
     of training on the job. Training will be paid for directly by 
     the Secretary or using vouchers.
       One of the statutory criteria for approval of training is 
     that the worker be qualified to undertake and complete such 
     training. The statute doesn't specifically address how the 
     income support available to a worker is to be considered in 
     determining the length of training the worker is qualified to 
     undertake. Another of the statutory training approval 
     criteria is that the training is available at a reasonable 
     cost. The statute doesn't specifically address if funds other 
     than those available under TAA may be considered in making 
     this determination.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision strikes the obsolete requirement that the 
     Secretary of Labor shall ``assure the provision'' of training 
     on the job.
       This provision increases the training cap from $220,000,000 
     to $575,000,000 in FY2009 and FY2010, prorated for the period 
     beginning October 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2010.
       The provision requires the Secretary to make an initial 
     distribution of training funds to the States as soon as 
     practicable after the beginning of the fiscal year based on 
     the following criteria: (1) the trend in numbers of certified 
     workers; (2) the trend in numbers of workers participating in 
     training; (3) the number of workers enrolled in training; (4) 
     the estimated amount of funding needed to provide approved 
     training; and (5) other factors the Secretary determines are 
     appropriate. The provision specifies that initial 
     distribution of training funds to a State may not be less 
     than 25 percent of the initial distribution to that State in 
     the previous fiscal year.
       The provision requires the Secretary to establish 
     procedures for the distribution of the funds held in reserve, 
     which may include the distribution of such funds in response 
     to requests made by States in need of additional training 
     funds. The provision also requires the Secretary to 
     distribute 65 percent of the training funds in the initial 
     distribution, and to distribute at least 90 percent of 
     training funds for a particular fiscal year by July 15 of 
     that fiscal year.
       The provision directs the Secretary to decide how to 
     distribute funds if training costs will exceed available 
     funds.
       The provision would specify that in determining if a worker 
     is qualified to undertake and complete training, the training 
     may be approved for a period that is longer than the period 
     for which TRA is available if the worker demonstrates the 
     financial ability to complete the training after TRA is 
     exhausted. It is intended that financial ability means the 
     ability to pay living expenses while in TAA-funded training 
     after the period of TRA eligibility.
       The provision would specify that in determining whether the 
     costs of training are reasonable, the Secretary may consider 
     whether other public or private funds are available to the 
     worker, but may not require the worker to obtain such funds 
     as a condition for approval of training. This means, for 
     example, that if a training program would be determined not 
     to have a reasonable cost if only the use of TAA training 
     funds were considered, the Secretary may consider the 
     availability of other public and private funds to the worker. 
     If the worker voluntarily commits to using such funds to 
     supplement the TAA training funds to pay for the training 
     program, the training program may be approved. However, the 
     Secretary may not require the worker to use the other public 
     or private funds where the costs of the training program 
     would be reasonable using only TAA training funds.
       Finally, the provision requires the Secretary to issue 
     regulations in consultation with the Senate Finance Committee 
     and the House Committee on Ways and Means.


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents believe that the training cap needs to be 
     increased for two reasons. First, more funding is needed to 
     cover the expanded group of TAA eligible workers because of 
     changes made elsewhere in the bill (e.g., coverage of service 
     workers, expanded coverage of manufacturing workers). Second, 
     during high periods of TAA usage, the existing training 
     funding has proved to be insufficient. Some states have run 
     out of training funds, resulting in some States freezing 
     enrollment of eligible workers in training. See GAO-04-1012.
       As the GAO has documented, there are significant problems 
     with the Department's method of allocating training funds. 
     The primary problem is that the Department of Labor's method 
     of allocation appears to result in insufficient funds for 
     some States. This appears to be occurring because of the 
     Department's reliance on historical usage and a ``hold 
     harmless'' policy. In particular, States that were 
     experiencing heavy layoffs at the time the initial allocation 
     formula was implemented may no longer be experiencing layoffs 
     at the same rate, but still receive significant allocations 
     from the Department. In contrast, a State experiencing 
     relatively few layoffs several years ago may now have far 
     greater numbers of layoffs, but still receives a limited 
     amount in its distribution. In short, the allocation that 
     States receive at the beginning of the fiscal year may not 
     reflect their present demand for training services. The 
     provision addresses these problems by lowering the ``hold 
     harmless'' provision to 25 percent, requiring initial and 
     subsequent distributions to be based on need, and by 
     requiring that 90 percent of the funds be allocated by July 
     15 of each fiscal year. Additionally, the proponents expect 
     the Secretary to distribute the remaining funds as soon as 
     possible after that date.
       In order to facilitate the approval of longer-term 
     training, the proponents intend to ensure that the period of 
     approved training is not necessarily limited to the duration 
     of TRA. Where the worker demonstrates the ability to pay 
     living expenses while in TAA funded training after TRA is 
     exhausted, such training should be approved if the other 
     training approval criteria are also met.
       The proponents intend to ensure that training programs that 
     would otherwise not be approved under TAA due to costs may be 
     approved if a worker voluntarily commits to using 
     supplemental public or private funds to pay a portion of the 
     costs.
       It is also the intent that, together, these amendments to 
     the training approval criteria allow training to be approved 
     for a period that is longer than the period for which TRA and 
     TAA-funded training is available if the worker demonstrates 
     the financial ability to pay living expenses and pay for the 
     additional training costs using other funds

[[Page S2058]]

     after TRA and the TAA-funded training are exhausted.


                             Effective Date

       The provision increasing the training cap goes into effect 
     upon the date of enactment of this Act. The provisions 
     relating to training fund distribution procedures go into 
     effect October 1, 2009. The other provisions in this section 
     go into effect upon expiration of the 90-day period beginning 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, and apply to petitions 
     filed on or after that date.
     Prerequisite Education, Approved Training Programs (Section 
         1729 (amending Section 236 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Under present law, approvable training includes employer-
     based training (on-the-job training/customized training), 
     training approved under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, 
     training approved by a private industry council, any remedial 
     education program, any training program whose costs are paid 
     by another federal or State program, and any other program 
     approved by the Secretary. Additionally, remedial training is 
     approvable and participation in such training makes a worker 
     eligible for up to 26 more weeks of TAA-related income 
     support.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision clarifies that existing law allows training 
     funds to be used to pay for apprenticeship programs, any 
     prerequisite education required to enroll in training, and 
     training at an accredited institution of higher education 
     (such as those covered by 102 of the Higher Education Act), 
     including training to obtain or complete a degree or 
     certification program (where completion of the degree or 
     certification can be reasonably expected to result in 
     employment). The provision also prohibits the Secretary from 
     limiting training approval to programs provided pursuant to 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
       The provision offers up to an additional 26 weeks of income 
     support while workers take prerequisite training or remedial 
     training necessary to enter a training program. A worker may 
     enroll in remedial training or prerequisite training, or 
     both, but may not receive more than 26 weeks of additional 
     income support.


                           Reasons for Change

       Present law does not explicitly state whether TAA training 
     funds may be used to obtain a college or advanced degree. 
     Some States have interpreted this silence to preclude 
     enrollment in a two-year community college or four-year 
     college or university as a training option, even where a TAA 
     participant was working towards completion of a degree prior 
     to being laid off. The proponents believe that States should 
     be encouraged to approve the use of training funds by TAA 
     enrollees to obtain training or a college or advanced degree, 
     including degrees offered at two-year community colleges and 
     four-year colleges or universities.
       While a worker can obtain additional income support while 
     participating in remedial training, there is no corollary 
     support for workers participating in prerequisite training 
     (e.g., individuals enrolling in nursing usually need basic 
     science prerequisites, which are not considered qualifying 
     remedial training). States have requested additional income 
     support for workers who participate in prerequisite training.
       The proponents believe that while WIA-approved training is 
     an approvable TAA training option, it should not be the only 
     one that TAA enrollees are authorized to pursue. The 
     proponents are concerned that some States have restricted 
     training opportunities to those approved under WIA. According 
     to the Congressional Research Service, many community 
     colleges, for instance, do not get WIA certification because 
     of its costly reporting requirements. To limit TAA training 
     opportunities in this way unacceptably curbs the scope of 
     training that TAA enrollees might elect to participate in and 
     potentially impairs their ability to get retrained and 
     reemployed.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Pre-Layoff and Part-Time Training (Section 1730 (amending 
         Section 236 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Present law does not permit pre-layoff or part-time 
     training,


                        Explanation of Provision

       This provision specifies that the Secretary may approve 
     training for a worker who (1) is a member of a group of 
     workers that has been certified as eligible to apply for TAA 
     benefits; (2) has not been totally or partially separated 
     from employment; and (3) is determined to be individually 
     threatened with total or partial separation. Such training 
     may not include on-the-job training, or customized training 
     unless such customized training is for a position other than 
     the workers' current position.
       Additionally, the provision permits the Secretary to 
     approve part-time training, but clarifies that a worker 
     enrolled in part-time training is not eligible for a TRA.


                           Reasons for Change

       This provision explicitly establishes Congress' intent that 
     workers be eligible to receive pre-layoff and part-time 
     training.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     On-the-Job Training (Section 1731 (amending Section 236 of 
         the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Current law provides that the Secretary may approve on-the-
     job training (``OJT''), but does not govern the content of 
     acceptable OJT.


                        Explanation of Provision

       This provision permits the Secretary to approve OJT for any 
     adversely affected worker if the worker meets the training 
     requirements, and the Secretary determines the OJT (1) can 
     reasonably lead to employment with the OJT employer; (2) is 
     compatible with the worker's skills; (3) will allow the 
     worker to become proficient in the job for which the worker 
     is being trained; and (4) the State determines the OJT meets 
     necessary requirements. The Secretary may not enter into 
     contracts with OJT employers that exhibit a pattern of 
     failing to provide workers with continued long-term 
     employment and adequate wages, benefits, and working 
     conditions as regular employees.


                           Reasons for Change

       The provision incorporates requirements to ensure OJT is 
     effective. Specifically, OJT must be (1) reasonably expected 
     to lead to suitable employment; (2)compatible with the 
     workers' skills; and (2) include a State-approved benchmark-
     based curriculum. Moreover, the provision is intended to 
     prevent employers from treating workers participating in OJT 
     differently in terms of wages, benefits, and working 
     conditions from regular employees who have worked a similar 
     period of time and are doing the same type of work.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Eligibility for Unemployment Insurance and Program Benefits 
         While in Training (Section 1732 (amending Section 236 of 
         the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Current law states that a worker may not be deemed 
     ineligible for UI (and thus, TAA) if they are in training or 
     leave unsuitable work to enter training.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision states that a worker will not be ineligible 
     for UI or TAA if the worker (1) is in training, even if the 
     worker does not meet the requirements of availability for 
     work, active work search, or refusal to accept work under 
     Federal and State UI law; (2) leaves work to participate in 
     training, including temporary work during a break in 
     training; or (3) leaves OJT that did not meet the 
     requirements of this Act within 30 days of commencing such 
     training.


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents are concerned that confusion in present UI 
     law surrounding a worker's decision to quit work to enter 
     training and the ramifications of that decision from a UI 
     eligibility perspective may preclude a worker from being able 
     to participate in TAA training. The provision is meant to 
     eliminate that confusion.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Job Search and Relocation Allowances (Section 1733 (amending 
         Section 237 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       The Secretary may grant an application for a job search 
     allowance where (1) the allowance will help the totally 
     separated worker find a job in the United States; (2) 
     suitable employment is not available in the local area; and 
     (3) the application is filed by the later of (a) 1 year from 
     separation, (b) 1 year from certification, or (c) 6 months 
     after completing training (unless the worker received a 
     waiver, in which case the worker must file by the later of 
     one year after separation or certification). A worker may be 
     reimbursed for 90 percent of his job search costs, up to 
     $1,250.
       The Secretary may grant an application for a relocation 
     allowance where: (1) the allowance will assist a totally 
     separated worker relocate within the United States; (2) 
     suitable employment is not available in the local area; (3) 
     the affected worker has no job at the time of relocation; (4) 
     the worker has found suitable employment that may reasonably 
     be expected to be of long-term duration; (5) the worker has a 
     bona fide offer of employment; and (6) the worker filed the 
     application the later of (a) 425 days from separation, (b) 
     425 days from certification, or (c) 6 months after completing 
     training (unless the worker received a waiver, in which case 
     the worker must file by the later of 425 days after 
     separation or certification). A worker may be reimbursed for 
     90 percent of his relocation costs plus a lump sump payment 
     of three times the worker's weekly wage up to $1,250.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision reimburses 100 percent of a worker's job 
     search expenses, up to $1,500,

[[Page S2059]]

     and 100 percent of a worker's relocation expenses, and 
     increases the additional lump sum payment for relocation to a 
     maximum of $1,500. It also strikes the provision in existing 
     law under which a worker who has completed training but who 
     received a prior training waiver has a shorter period to 
     apply for a job search allowance and relocation allowance 
     than other workers who have completed training.


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents believe that the job search and relocation 
     allowances need to be increased to reflect the cost of 
     inflation and the cost and difficulty a worker faces when 
     looking for work and taking a job outside the worker's local 
     community.
       The proponents believe that workers completing training 
     should have the same periods after training to apply for job 
     search and relocation allowances irrespective of whether a 
     worker received a waiver from the enrollment in training 
     requirements prior to undertaking and completing the 
     training. This period allows workers a reasonable opportunity 
     to obtain the same assistance as other workers needed to find 
     and relocate to a new job after being trained.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.

     4. Subpart D--Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance Program

     Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance Program (Section 
         1741 (amending Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       The Trade Act of 2002 created a demonstration project for 
     alternative trade adjustment assistance for older workers 
     (ATAA or ``wage insurance''). Through this program, some 
     workers who are eligible for TAA and reemployed at lower 
     wages may receive a partial wage subsidy. Under the program, 
     States use Federal funds provided under the Trade Act to pay 
     eligible workers up to 50 percent of the difference between 
     reemployment wages and wages at the time of separation. 
     Eligible workers may not earn more than $50,000 in 
     reemployment wages, and total payments to a worker may not 
     exceed $10,000 during a maximum period of two years.
       In addition to having been certified for TAA, such workers 
     must be at least 50 years of age, obtain full-time 
     reemployment with a new firm within 26 weeks of separation 
     from employment, and have been separated from a firm that is 
     specifically certified for ATAA. When considering 
     certification of a firm for ATAA, the Secretary of Labor 
     considers whether a significant number of workers in the firm 
     are 50 years of age or older and possess skills that are not 
     easily transferable. ATAA beneficiaries may not receive TAA 
     benefits other than the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC).


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision renames ATAA ``reemployment TAA.'' The 
     provision eliminates the requirement that a group of workers 
     (in addition to individuals) be specifically certified for 
     wage insurance in addition to TAA certification. The 
     provision eliminates the current-law requirement that a 
     worker must find employment within 26 weeks of being laid off 
     to be eligible for the wage insurance benefit, and replaces 
     it with a requirement that the clock on the two-year duration 
     of the benefit begin at the sooner of exhaustion of regular 
     unemployment benefits or reemployment, allowing initial 
     receipt of the wage insurance benefit at any point during 
     that two-year period.
       The provision allows workers to shift from receiving a TRA, 
     while training, to receiving reemployment TAA, while 
     employed, at any point during the two-year period.
       The provision increases the limit on wages in eligible 
     reemployment from $50,000 a year to $55,000 a year. 
     Similarly, it increases the maximum wage insurance benefit 
     (over two years) from up to $10,000 to up to $12,000.
       The provision lifts the restriction on wage insurance 
     recipients' participation in TAA-funded training. It also 
     permits workers reemployed less than full-time, but at least 
     20 hours a week, and in approved training, to receive the 
     wage insurance benefit (which would be prorated if the worker 
     is reemployed for fewer hours compared to previous 
     employment).


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents believe that the reemployment TAA, or wage 
     insurance, program is a potentially beneficial option for 
     many older workers, but it includes unnecessary barriers to 
     participation. The proponents believe that changes to section 
     246 of the Trade Act will make the wage insurance program a 
     more viable option for many more potentially interested 
     workers. Inflation has lessened the maximum value of the 
     available benefit, and increasing personal, nominal, median 
     income has lowered the share of workers eligible to 
     participate in the program. Several other requirements make 
     the program inaccessible and unattractive.
       Findings from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
     highlight the need to reform specific aspects of the program. 
     First, the 26-week reemployment deadline was cited by the GAO 
     as one of ``two key factors [that] limit participation.'' The 
     GAO went on to note that ``[o]fficials in States [the GAO] 
     visited said that one of the greatest obstacles to 
     participation was the requirement for workers to find a new 
     job within 26 weeks after being laid off. For example, 
     according to officials in one State, 80 percent of 
     participants who were seeking wage insurance but were unable 
     to obtain it failed because they could not find a job within 
     the 26-week period. The challenges of finding a job within 
     this timeframe may be compounded by the fact that workers may 
     actually have less than 26 weeks to secure a job if they are 
     laid off prior to becoming certified for TAA. For example, a 
     local caseworker in one State [the GAO] visited said that the 
     26 weeks had passed completely before a worker was certified 
     for the benefit.''
       Additionally, the GAO found that automatically certifying 
     workers for the wage insurance benefit would cut the 
     Department of Labor's workload and promote program 
     participation.
       Currently, workers opting for wage insurance must also 
     surrender eligibility for TAA-funded training and be 
     reemployed full-time. The provision eliminates these 
     restrictions.
       The proponents believe that eliminating the 26-week 
     deadline for reemployment, eliminating the need for firms to 
     be certified for wage insurance, eliminating the prohibition 
     on wage insurance beneficiaries receiving TAA-funded 
     training, and allowing part-time workers and former TRA 
     recipients access to the wage insurance benefit should make 
     the wage insurance program more accessible and attractive.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.

                      5. Subpart E--Other Matters

     Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance (Section 1751 (amending 
         Subchapter C of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 
         1974))


                              Present Law

       The TAA for Workers program is currently operated by the 
     Employment and Training Administration at the Department of 
     Labor.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision creates an Office of Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance headed by an administrator who shall report 
     directly to a Senate-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
     Employment and Training Administration. The Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary shall report directly to the Assistant Secretary 
     for Employment and Training Administration.
       Under the provision, the administrator will be responsible 
     for overseeing and implementing the TAA for Workers program 
     and carrying out functions delegated to the Secretary of 
     Labor, including: making group certification determinations; 
     providing TAA information and assisting workers and others 
     assisting such workers prepare petitions or applications for 
     program benefits (including health care benefits); ensuring 
     covered workers receive Section 235 employment and case 
     management services; ensuring States comply with the terms of 
     their Section 239 agreements; advocating for workers applying 
     for assistance; and operating a hotline that workers and 
     employers may call with questions about TAA benefits, 
     eligibility requirements, and application procedures.
       The provision requires the administrator to designate an 
     employee of the Department with appropriate experience and 
     expertise to receive complaints and requests for assistance, 
     resolve such complaints and requests, compile basic 
     information concerning the same, and carry out other tasks 
     that the Secretary specifies.
       The Deputy Assistant Secretary will oversee the operation 
     of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance and carry out 
     other duties that the Secretary assigns.


                           Reasons for Change

       It is the view of the proponents that creating an Office of 
     Trade Adjustment Assistance in the Department of Labor with 
     primary accountability for the management and performance of 
     the TAA for Workers program will improve the program's 
     operation. By requiring that the individual running that 
     office report to a Deputy Assistant Secretary confirmed by 
     the Senate, accountability and oversight of the program as a 
     whole will be enhanced.
       The creation of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     should not interfere with the coordination of services 
     provided by TAA, the National Emergency Grant program, and 
     Department of Labor Rapid Response services.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
     Accountability of State Agencies; Collection and Publication 
         of Program Data; Agreements with States (Section 1752 
         (amending Section 239 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Present law gives the Secretary of Labor the authority to 
     delegate to the States through agreements many aspects of TAA 
     implementation, including responsibilities to (1) receive 
     applications for TAA and provide payments; (2) make 
     arrangements to provide certain employment services through 
     other Federal programs; and (3) issue waivers. It also 
     mandates that any agreement entered into shall include 
     sections requiring that the provision of TAA

[[Page S2060]]

     services and training be coordinated with the provision of 
     Workforce Investment Act (WIA) services and training. In 
     carrying out its responsibilities, each State must notify 
     workers who apply for UI about TAA, facilitate early filing 
     for TAA benefits, advise workers to apply for training when 
     they apply for TRA, and interview affected workers as soon as 
     possible for purposes of getting them into training. States 
     must also submit to the Department of Labor information like 
     that provided under a WIA State plan.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision requires the Secretary, either directly or 
     through the States (through cooperating agreements), to make 
     the employment and case management services described in the 
     amended section 235 available to TAA eligible workers. TAA 
     eligible workers are not required to accept or participate in 
     such services, however, if they choose not to do so.
       The provision requires States and cooperating State 
     agencies to implement effective control measures and to 
     effectively oversee the operation and administration of the 
     TAA program, including by monitoring the operation of control 
     measures to improve the accuracy and timeliness of reported 
     data.
       The provision also requires States and cooperating State 
     agencies to report comprehensive performance accountability 
     data to the Secretary, on a quarterly basis.


                           Reasons for Change

       To ensure that the employment and case management services 
     described in the amended section 235 are made available to 
     TAA enrollees as required under that section, the proponents 
     believe that it is necessary to incorporate those obligations 
     into the agreements that the Department of Labor enters into 
     with each of the States concerning the administration of TAA.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Verification of Eligibility for Program Benefits (Section 
         1753 (amending Section 239 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       There is no provision in present law.


                        Explanation of Provision

       Section 1753 requires a State to re-verify the immigration 
     status of a worker receiving TAA benefits using the 
     Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(d)) if the documentation provided during 
     the worker's initial verification for the purposes of 
     establishing the worker's eligibility for unemployment 
     compensation would expire during the period in which that 
     worker is potentially eligible to receive TAA benefits.
       The section also requires the Secretary to establish 
     procedures to ensure that the re-verification process is 
     implemented properly and uniformly from State to State.


                           Reasons for Change

       This provision is intended to ensure that workers maintain 
     a satisfactory immigration status while receiving benefits. 
     This section was included for the purposes of the TAA program 
     only and should not be extended to other programs.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Collection of Data and Reports; Information to Workers 
         (Section 1754 (amending Subchapter C of chapter 2 of 
         title II of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       Present law does not contain statutory language requiring 
     the collection of data or performance goals and the TAA 
     program has suffered a history of problems with its 
     performance data that has undermined the data's credibility 
     and limited their usefulness. Most of the outcome data 
     reported in a given program year actually reflects 
     participants who left the program up to 5 calendar quarters 
     earlier. In addition, as of FY 2006, the Department of Labor 
     does not consistently report TAA data by State or industry or 
     by services or benefits received.
       While the Department of Labor has take some steps aimed at 
     improving performance data, the data remain suspect and fail 
     to capture outcomes for some of the program's participants, 
     and many participants are not included in the final outcomes 
     at all.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision would require the Secretary of Labor to 
     implement a system for collecting data on all workers who 
     apply for or receive TAA. The system must include the 
     following data classified by State, industry, and nationwide 
     totals: number of petitions; number of workers covered; 
     average processing time for petitions; a breakdown of 
     certified petitions by the cause of job loss (increased 
     imports etc.); the number of workers receiving benefits under 
     any aspect of TAA (broken down by type of benefit); the 
     average time during which workers receive each type of 
     benefit; the number of workers enrolled in training, 
     classified by type of training; the average duration of 
     training; the number and type of training waiver granted; the 
     number of workers who complete and do not complete training; 
     data on outcomes, including the sectors in which workers are 
     employed after receiving benefits; and data on rapid response 
     activities.
       The provision would also require, by December 15 of each 
     year, the Secretary to provide to the Senate Finance 
     Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means a report 
     that includes a summary of the information above, information 
     on distributions of training funds under section 236(a)(2), 
     and any recommendations on whether changes to eligibility 
     requirements, benefits, or training funding should be made 
     based on the data collected. Those data must be made 
     available to the public on the Department of Labor's website 
     in a searchable format and must be updated quarterly.


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents believe that valuable information on TAA and 
     its impact is neither being collected nor being made publicly 
     available. This, in turn, inhibits the ability of Congress to 
     perform its oversight responsibilities and, if necessary, to 
     refine and improve the program, its performance, and worker 
     outcomes. Additionally, the proponents believe that all of 
     the data that the Department of Labor gathers should be made 
     available and posted on its website in a searchable format. 
     This will enhance the accountability of the TAA program and 
     the Department of Labor, not just to Congress, but to the 
     American people as well.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Fraud and recovery of overpayments (Section 1755 (amending 
         Section 243(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       An overpayment of TAA benefits may be waived if, in 
     accordance with the Secretary's guidelines, the payment was 
     made without fault on the part of such individual, and 
     requiring such repayment would be contrary to ``equity and 
     good conscience.''


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision states that the Secretary shall waive 
     repayment if the overpayment was made without fault on the 
     part of such individual and if repayment ``would cause a 
     financial hardship for the individual (or the individual's 
     household, if applicable) when taking into consideration the 
     income and resources reasonably available to the individual 
     or household and other ordinary living expenses of the 
     individual or household.''


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents believe that the Department of Labor has 
     adopted a very strict standard for issuing overpayment 
     waivers. In particular, 20 CFR 617.55(a)(2)(ii)(C) defines 
     equity and good conscience to require ``extraordinary and 
     lasting financial hardship'' that would ``result directly'' 
     in the ``loss of or inability to obtain minimal necessities 
     of food, medicine, and shelter for a substantial period of 
     time'' and ``may be expected to endure for the foreseeable 
     future.''
       The proponents understand that no worker has met this 
     strict waiver standard. In including standard statutory 
     waiver language in TAA, there is no indication that Congress 
     intended to make waivers impossible to secure. To the 
     contrary, the proponents believe that Congress intended that 
     overpaid individuals who are without fault and unable to 
     repay their TAA overpayments should have a reasonable 
     opportunity for waivers of the requirement to return those 
     overpayments. The provision clarifies this intent.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Sense of Congress on Application of Trade Adjustment 
         Assistance (Section 1756 (amending Section Chapter 5 of 
         title II of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       There is no provision in present law.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision expresses the Sense of Congress that the 
     Secretaries of Labor, Commerce, and Agriculture should apply 
     the provisions of their respective trade adjustment 
     assistance programs with the utmost regard for the interests 
     of workers, firms, communities, and farmers petitioning for 
     benefits.


                           Reasons for Change

       Courts reviewing determinations by the Department of Labor 
     regarding certification for trade adjustment assistance have 
     stated that the Department is obliged to conduct its 
     investigations with ``utmost regard for the interests of the 
     petitioning workers.'' See, e.g., Former Employees of Komatsu 
     Dresser v. United States Secretary of Labor, 16 C.I.T. 300, 
     303 (1992) (citations omitted). The courts have explained 
     that such statements flow from the ex parte nature of the 
     Department's certification process (as opposed to a judicial 
     or quasi-judicial proceeding) and the remedial purpose of the 
     trade adjustment assistance program. This section reflects 
     such statements and extends them to the firms, farmers, and 
     communities programs.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the

[[Page S2061]]

     date of enactment of this Act, and applies to petitions filed 
     on or after that date.
     Consultations in Promulgation of Regulations (Section 1757 
         (amending Section 248 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       The Secretary is required to prescribe necessary 
     regulations.


                        Explanation of Provision

       This provision requires the Secretary to consult with the 
     Senate Finance Committee and the House Committee on Ways and 
     Means 90 days prior to the issuance of a final rule or 
     regulation.


                           Reasons for Change

       Requiring that the Secretary consult with the relevant 
     committees 90 days prior to the issuance of a final rule or 
     regulations will help ensure that such rules and regulations 
     reflect Congress' intent.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.

           B. Part II--Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms

     Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (Section 1761-1767 
         (amending Sections 251, 254, 255, 256, 257, and 258 of 
         the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       A firm may file a petition for certification with the 
     Secretary of Commerce. Upon receipt of the petition, the 
     Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register that 
     the petition has been received and is being investigated. The 
     petitioner, or anyone else with a substantial interest, may 
     request a public hearing concerning the petition.
       To be certified to receive TAA benefits, a firm must show 
     (1) a ``significant'' number of workers became or are 
     threatened to become totally or partially separated; (2) 
     sales or production of an article, or both, decreased 
     absolutely, or sales or production, or both, of an article 
     that accounted for not less than 25 percent of the total 
     production or sales of the firm during the 12-month period 
     preceding the most recent 12-month period for which data are 
     available have decreased absolutely; and (3) increased 
     imports of competing articles ``contributed importantly'' to 
     the decline in sales, production, and/or workforce.
       A firm certified under section 251 has two years in which 
     to file an adjustment assistance application, which must 
     include an economic adjustment proposal.
       In deciding whether to approve an application, the 
     Secretary of Commerce must determine that the proposal (1) is 
     reasonably calculated ``to materially contribute'' to the 
     economic adjustment of the firm; (2) gives adequate 
     consideration to the interests of the firm's workers; and (3) 
     demonstrates that the firm will use its own resources for 
     adjustment.
       Criminal and civil penalties are applicable for, among 
     other things, making false statements or failing to disclose 
     material facts. However, the penalties do not cover the acts 
     and omissions of customers or others responding to queries 
     made in the course of an investigation of a firm's petition.
       The Secretary must make its decisions within 60 days.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision makes service sector firms potentially 
     eligible for benefits under the TAA for Firms program. It 
     also expands the look back so that all firms can use the 
     average of one, two, or three years of sales or production 
     data, as opposed to one year, to show that the firm's sales, 
     production, or both, have decreased absolutely or that the 
     firm's sales, production, or both of an article or service 
     that accounts for at least 25 percent of its total 
     production, or sales have decreased absolutely.
       In determining eligibility, the provision makes clear that 
     the Secretary may use data from the preceding 36 months to 
     determine an increase in imports, and may determine that 
     increased imports exist if customers accounting for a 
     significant percentage of the decline in a firm's sales or 
     production certify that their purchases of imported articles 
     or services have increased absolutely or relative to the 
     acquisition of such articles or services from suppliers in 
     the United States.
       The provision requires the Secretary of Commerce, upon 
     receiving information from the Secretary of Labor that the 
     workers of a firm are TAA-covered, to notify the firm of its 
     potential TAA eligibility.
       The provision requires the Secretary of Commerce to provide 
     grants to intermediary organizations to deliver TAA benefits. 
     The provision requires the Secretary to endeavor to align the 
     contracting schedules for all such grants by 2010, and to 
     provide annual grants to the intermediary organizations 
     thereafter. The provision requires the Secretary to develop a 
     methodology to ensure prompt initial distribution of a 
     portion of the funds to each of the intermediary 
     organizations, and to determine how the remaining funds will 
     be allocated and distributed to them. The Secretary must 
     develop the methodology in consultation with the Senate 
     Finance Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means.
       The provision amends the penalties provision in section 259 
     to cover entities, including customers, providing information 
     during an investigation of a firm's petition.
       Additionally, the provision requires the Secretary of 
     Commerce to submit an annual report demonstrating the 
     operation, effectiveness, and outcomes of the TAA for Firms 
     program to the Senate Finance Committee and the House 
     Committee on Ways and Means, and to make the report available 
     to the public. The methodology for the distribution of funds 
     to the intermediary organizations shall include criteria 
     based on the data in the report. The provision creates rules 
     relating to the disclosure of confidential business 
     information included in this annual report.


                           Reasons for Change

       Most service sector firms are currently ineligible for the 
     TAA for Firms program because of a statutory requirement that 
     the workers must have been employed by a firm that produces 
     an ``article.'' In an era when 80 percent of U.S. workers are 
     employed in the service sector, the proponents believe 
     service sector firms should be eligible for TAA.
       The proponents also note that firms currently have a 
     limited ``look back'' under existing law, which unfairly 
     restricts their ability to show that increased imports are 
     hurting their businesses.
       Because data is not always readily available to demonstrate 
     an increase in imports of articles or services, or to show 
     how such increased imports compete with the articles or 
     services of a particular firm, the proponents believe that 
     the Secretary should be able to utilize information from the 
     customers of a firm that account for a significant percentage 
     of sales or production that would verify these customers are 
     increasing their purchases of imports relative to their 
     purchases from domestic suppliers.
       Since a firm may not know that it could be eligible for TAA 
     benefits, despite the fact that workers at the firm have 
     qualified for the TAA for workers program, the proponents 
     believe it is important to give these firms notice of their 
     potential eligibility for TAA benefits.
       The proponents are concerned that at present, the Economic 
     Development Administration (EDA) is entering into contracts 
     with intermediary organizations that vary in length.
       Thus, the contracts begin and end at different times during 
     the year. To improve transparency, accountability and 
     oversight, the proponents have included a provision requiring 
     EDA to endeavor to align these contracts by October 2010 and 
     enter into 12 month contracts thereafter. The proponents will 
     leave it to the discretion of the Secretary to determine the 
     appropriate 12 month contract cycle.
       The proponents also believe that the methodology for 
     distributing funds to intermediary organizations should be 
     based in part on their performance, the number of firms they 
     serve, and the outcomes of firms completing the program. The 
     Secretary of Commerce should consult Congress before 
     finalizing such methodology.
       The proponents understand that some customers provide 
     inaccurate or incomplete information in response to 
     questionnaires posed by the Secretary. The penalty language 
     included in this provision is designed to address this 
     problem.


                             effective date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
     Extension of Authorization of Trade Adjustment Assistance for 
         Firms (Section 1764)


                              present law

       The authorization of the TAA for Firms program expired on 
     December 31, 2007. The program is currently authorized at $16 
     million per year.


                        explanation of provision

       The provision reauthorizes the program through December 31, 
     2010, and increases its funding to $50 million per year for 
     fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and prorates such funding for the 
     period beginning October 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 
     2010. Of that amount, $350,000 is set aside each year to fund 
     full-time TAA for Firms positions at the Department of 
     Commerce, including a director of the TAA for Firms program.


                           reasons for change

       The proponents believe that the TAA for Firms program has 
     been underfunded, as at least $15 million in approved 
     projects lack funding. Additionally, the Firms team at the 
     Department of Commerce lacks adequate full-time staff to 
     administer the program.


                             effective date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.

        C. Part III--Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities

     Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities (Section 1771-
         1773)


                              present law

       There is no provision in present law.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision creates a Trade Adjustment Assistance for 
     Communities program that will allow a community to apply for 
     designation as a community affected by trade. A community may 
     receive such designation from the Secretary of Commerce if 
     the community demonstrates that (1) the Secretary of Labor 
     has certified a group of workers in the community as eligible 
     for TAA for Workers benefits, the Secretary of Commerce has

[[Page S2062]]

     certified a firm in the community as eligible for TAA for 
     Firms benefits, or a group of agricultural producers in the 
     community has been certified to receive benefits under the 
     TAA for Farmers and Fishermen program; and (2) the Secretary 
     determines that the community is significantly affected by 
     the threat to, or the loss of, jobs associated with that 
     certification. The Secretary of Commerce must notify the 
     community and the Governor of the State in which the 
     community is located upon making an affirmative determination 
     that the community is affected by trade.
       The Secretary of Commerce shall provide technical 
     assistance to a community affected by trade to assist the 
     community to (1) diversify and strengthen its economy; (2) 
     identify impediments to economic development that result from 
     the impact of trade; and (3) develop a community strategic 
     plan to address economic adjustment and workforce dislocation 
     in the community. The Secretary of Commerce shall also 
     identify Federal, State and local resources available to 
     assist the community, and ensure that Federal assistance is 
     delivered in a targeted, integrated manner. The Secretary 
     shall establish an Interagency Community Assistance Working 
     Group to assist in coordinating the Federal response.
       A community affected by trade may develop a strategic plan 
     for the community's economic adjustment and submit the plan 
     to the Secretary. The plan should be developed, to the extent 
     possible, with participation from local, county, and State 
     governments, local firms, local workforce investment boards, 
     labor organizations, and educational institutions. The plan 
     should include an analysis of the economic development 
     challenges facing the community and the community's capacity 
     to achieve economic adjustment to these challenges; an 
     assessment of the community's long-term commitment to the 
     plan and the participation of community members; a 
     description of projects to be undertaken by the community; a 
     description of educational opportunities and future 
     employment needs in the community; and an assessment of the 
     funding required to implement the strategic plan.
       Of the funds appropriated, the Secretary of Commerce may 
     award up to $25 million in grants to assist the community in 
     developing a strategic plan.
       The provision authorizes $150 million in discretionary 
     grants to be awarded by the Secretary of Commerce. An 
     eligible community may apply for a grant from the Secretary 
     to implement a project or program included in the community's 
     strategic plan. Grants may not exceed $5 million. The Federal 
     share of the grant may not exceed 95 percent of the cost of 
     the project and the community's share is an amount not less 
     than 5 percent. Priority shall be given to grant applications 
     submitted by small and medium-sized communities.
       Educational institutions may also apply for Community 
     College and Career Training grants from the Secretary of 
     Labor. Grant proposals must include information regarding (1) 
     the manner in which the grant will be used to develop or 
     improve an education or training program suited to workers 
     eligible for the TAA for Workers program; (2) the extent to 
     which the program will meet the needs of the workers in the 
     community; (3) the extent to which the proposal fits into a 
     community's strategic plan or relates to a Sector Partnership 
     Grant received by the community; and (4) any previous 
     experience of the institution in providing programs to 
     workers eligible for TAA. Educational institutions applying 
     for a grant must also reach out to employers in the community 
     to assess current deficiencies in training and the future 
     employment opportunities in the community.
       The provision authorizes $40 million in discretionary 
     grants to be awarded by the Secretary of Labor for the 
     Community College and Career Training Grant program. Priority 
     shall be given to grant applications submitted by eligible 
     institutions that serve communities that the Secretary of 
     Commerce has certified under section 273.
       The provision also establishes a Sector Partnership Grant 
     program that allows the Secretary of Labor to award industry 
     or sector partnership grants to facilitate efforts of the 
     partnership to strengthen and revitalize industries. The 
     partnerships shall consist of representatives of an industry 
     sector; local county, or State government; multiple firms in 
     the industry sector; local workforce investment boards 
     established under section 117 of the Workforce Investment Act 
     of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832); local labor organizations, 
     including State labor federations and labor-management 
     initiatives, representing workers in the community; and 
     educational institutions.
       The provision authorizes $40 million in discretionary 
     grants to be awarded by the Secretary of Labor for the Sector 
     Partnership Grant program. The Sector Partnership Grants may 
     be used to help the partnerships identify the skill needs of 
     the targeted industry or sector and any gaps in the available 
     supply of skilled workers in the community impacted by trade; 
     develop strategies for filling the gaps; assist firms, 
     especially small- and medium-sized firms, in the targeted 
     industry or sector increase their productivity and the 
     productivity of their workers; and assist such firms to 
     retain incumbent workers.


                           reasons for change

       The TAA for Workers program provides assistance to 
     individual workers who lose their jobs because of trade with 
     foreign countries. The program does not, however, provide 
     broader assistance when the closure or downsizing of a key 
     industry, company, or plant creates severe economic 
     challenges for an entire community impacted by trade. The 
     proponents believe there is a need for additional programs 
     and incentives to assist such communities. Accordingly, the 
     provision creates a TAA for Communities program to provide a 
     coordinated Federal response to eligible communities by 
     identifying Federal, State and local resources and helping 
     such communities to access available Federal assistance.
       The provision does not establish precise criteria for 
     determining when a particular community is impacted by trade. 
     In the view of the proponents, this determination is better 
     left to the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce, who can 
     evaluate specific facts in specific cases. As a general 
     matter, the proponents believe the Secretary should review 
     the underlying certification(s) that provide a basis for a 
     community's application and evaluate the potential impact of 
     the job losses (or threat thereof) associated with such 
     certification(s) on the broader community, given the 
     community's overall economic situation. The proponents intend 
     for the Secretary to focus grants on communities facing the 
     most difficult hardships, to the extent practicable.
       The proponents believe small- and medium-sized communities, 
     and in particular, those in rural areas where the 
     manufacturing sector has historically been a significant 
     employer, would benefit from the technical assistance and 
     grants available through this program. Such communities have 
     been disproportionately impacted by the adverse effects of 
     trade, where some lumber mills, factories and call centers, 
     for instance, have scaled back operations or closed entirely 
     in response to increased trade and globalization.
       The proponents do not intend for the preference for such 
     communities to result in all grants, or the majority of 
     grants, going to such communities to the exclusion of other 
     impacted communities.


                             effective date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
     Authorization of Appropriations for Trade Adjustment 
         Assistance for Communities (Section 1772)


                              present law

       There is no provision in present law.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision authorizes $150,000,000 to the Secretary of 
     Commerce for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and 
     $37,500,000 for the period beginning October 1, 2010 through 
     December 31, 2010 to carry out the TAA for Communities 
     program.
       The provision authorizes $40,000,000 to the Secretary of 
     Labor for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and $10,000,000 
     for the period beginning October 1, 2010 through December 31, 
     2010 to carry out the Community College and Career Training 
     Grant Program.
       The provision authorizes $40,000,000 to the Secretary of 
     Labor for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and $10,000,000 
     for the period beginning October 1, 2010 through December 31, 
     2010 to carry out the Sector Partnership Grant Program.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

          D. Part IV--Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers

     Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers (Section 1781-1786 
         (amending sections 291, 292, 293, 296 and 297 of the 
         Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       A group of agricultural producers or their representative 
     may file a petition for certification with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture. Upon receipt of the petition, the Secretary 
     shall publish a notice in the Federal Register that the 
     petition has been received and is being investigated. The 
     petitioner, or anyone else with a substantial interest, may 
     request a public hearing concerning the petition.
       To be certified to receive TAA benefits under this chapter, 
     the group of producers must show (1) that the national 
     average price of the agricultural commodity in the most 
     recent marketing year is less than 80 percent of the national 
     average price for the commodity for the 5 previous marketing 
     years, and (2) that increased imports of articles like or 
     directly competitive with the commodity contributed 
     importantly to the decline in price.
       A group of producers certified under Section 291 has one 
     year to receive TAA benefits, but may apply to be re-
     certified for a second year of benefits if the group can show 
     a further 20 percent price decline in the national average 
     price of the commodity, and that imports continued to 
     contribute importantly to that decline.
       To qualify to receive benefits, individual agricultural 
     producers that are covered by a certified petition must show 
     (1) that the individual producer produced the qualified 
     commodity; and (2) the net income of the producer has 
     decreased. Producers meeting these criteria are eligible to 
     participate in an initial technical assistance course, and to 
     receive cash benefits, not to exceed $10,000, based on their 
     production and the decline in price for the commodity. Where 
     available,

[[Page S2063]]

     the producer may also attend more intensive technical 
     assistance.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision defines an agricultural commodity producer, 
     for the purpose of the TAA for Farmers program, to include 
     fishermen, as well as farmers.
       The provision allows a group of producers to petition the 
     Secretary based on a 15 percent decline in price, value of 
     production, quantity of production, or cash receipts for the 
     commodity, rather than a 20 percent decline in price. The 
     provision shortens the look back period from an average of 5 
     years to an average of the national average price for the 
     previous three year period. Petitioning producers must also 
     show that imports contributed importantly to the decline in 
     price, production, value of production, or cash receipts.
       Once the Secretary certifies a group of commodity producers 
     for TAA, individual producers can qualify for benefits if the 
     producer shows (1) that they are producers of the commodity; 
     and (2) that the price received, quantity of production, or 
     value of production for the commodity has decreased.
       Producers deemed eligible to receive benefits by the 
     Secretary are eligible to receive initial technical 
     assistance, and may opt to receive intensive technical 
     assistance, which consists of a series of courses designed 
     for producers of the certified commodity. Upon completion of 
     the series of courses, the producer develops an initial 
     business plan which (1) reflects the skills gained by the 
     producer during the courses; and (2) demonstrates how the 
     producer intends to apply these skills to the producer's 
     farming or fishing operation. Upon approval by the Secretary 
     of the business plan described above, the producer is 
     entitled to receive up to $4,000 to implement the business 
     plan or to assist in the development of a long-term business 
     plan.
       Producers who complete an initial business plan may choose 
     to receive assistance to develop a long-term business 
     adjustment plan. The Secretary must review the plan to ensure 
     that it (1) will contribute to the economic adjustment of the 
     producer; (2) considers the interests of the producer's 
     employees, if any; and (3) demonstrates that the producer has 
     sufficient resources to implement the plan. If the Secretary 
     approves the plan, the producer is eligible to receive up to 
     $8,000 to implement the long-term business plan.
       Once a petition is certified for the group of producers, 
     qualifying producers are eligible for benefits for a 36-month 
     period. A producer may not receive more than $12,000 in any 
     36-month period to develop and implement business plans under 
     the program.
       The provision allows fishermen and aquaculture producers 
     who are otherwise eligible to receive TAA benefits to 
     demonstrate increased imports based on imports of farm-raised 
     or wild-caught fish or seafood, or both.


                           Reasons for Change

       The proponents believe that the 20 percent price decline 
     currently required for a group of producers to be certified 
     under the TAA for Farmers program is too high, and creates an 
     unnecessary barrier for producers to qualify for TAA 
     benefits. Further, producers and the Department of 
     Agriculture were concerned that the current five-year look 
     back period was too long and burdensome for producers.
       Additionally, since net farm income is a function of many 
     factors, it has proven very difficult for producers to show 
     the required decline in net income, even when the price for 
     specific commodities had declined significantly. Several 
     disputes regarding whether producers met the net income test 
     were taken to the U.S. Court of International Trade, 
     resulting in significant administrative expense for both the 
     producers and the Department of Agriculture.
       The proponents believe that demonstrating a decline in the 
     production or price of the commodity facing import 
     competition is a better measure of the impact of trade on the 
     individual producer, rather than net income. The provision 
     would allow farmers to demonstrate that either their 
     production decisions or price received for the qualified 
     commodity were affected.
       The proponents also believe that the focus of the TAA for 
     Farmers program should be adjustment assistance, rather than 
     cash benefits. Under the current program, most producers 
     received only initial technical assistance, with little 
     opportunity for additional curricula. The proponents believe 
     that all producers eligible for TAA benefits should receive 
     more thorough technical assistance and the opportunity for 
     individualized business planning, with financial assistance 
     provided to help the producer implement the business plans.
       Further, technical assistance should be provided by the 
     Department of Agriculture through the National Institute on 
     Food and Agriculture (``NIFA''), which may choose to make 
     grants to land grant universities and other outside 
     organizations to assist in the development and delivery of 
     technical assistance. NIFA (formerly the Cooperative State 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service) delivers 
     technical assistance under the current Farmers program, and 
     had successfully developed curricula to respond to producers' 
     adjustment needs.
       The proponents believe that the current one-year limit to 
     obtain TAA benefits unnecessarily limits producers' ability 
     to access technical assistance, particularly when farmers and 
     fishermen must spend significant portions of each year in the 
     fields or at sea. Extending the eligibility period to 36 
     months will allow producers to take advantage of all the 
     benefits offered, and will eliminate the need for the current 
     burdensome recertification process.
       The proponents believe that fishermen and aquaculture 
     producers who are otherwise eligible for TAA should be able 
     to demonstrate an increase in imports of like or directly 
     competitive products without regard to whether those imported 
     products were wild-caught or farm-raised. Current law allows 
     these producers to apply for benefits based on imports of 
     farm raised fish and seafood only.
       The proponents expect that the Department of Agriculture 
     will fully fund and operate the TAA for Farmers and Fishermen 
     program for the full duration of each fiscal year for which 
     it is authorized.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect upon expiration of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and applies to petitions filed on or after that date.
       Extension of Authorization and Appropriation for Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance for Farmers (Section 1787 (amending 
     Section 298 of the Trade Act of 1974))


                              Present Law

       The authorization and appropriation for the TAA for Farmers 
     program expired on December 31, 2007. The program is 
     currently authorized at $90 million per year.


                        Explanation of Provision

       This provision reauthorizes the program through December 
     30, 2010, and maintains its funding at $90 million per year 
     for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The provision further 
     provides funding on a prorated basis for the period beginning 
     October 1, 2010, and ending December 31, 2010.

                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

                      E. Part V--General Provision

     Government Accountability Office Report (Section 1793)


                              Present Law

       There is no provision in present law.


                        Explanation of Provision

       The provision requires the Comptroller General of the 
     United States to prepare and submit a report to the Senate 
     Finance Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     on the operation and effectiveness of these amendments to 
     chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Trade Act no later than 
     September 30, 2012.


                           Reasons for Change

       It is critical that GAO review and evaluate the TAA program 
     to assess the changes made by this legislation to ensure that 
     they have improved the effectiveness, operation, and 
     performance of the program.


                             Effective Date

       The provision goes into effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.)
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye of Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to restate my strong support for 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This measure will 
create more than 3.5 million jobs. It will provide billions of dollars 
to support our State and local governments. It will prevent tens of 
thousands of teachers, firemen, policemen, and other providers of 
essential services from being laid off at the worst possible time. It 
will provide tax cuts for working families. It will invest in the 
future of this Nation by rebuilding our roads, our sewers, mass 
transportation systems, and other essential infrastructure.
  We must pass this bill immediately. According to the Labor 
Department, the United States has lost 3.6 million jobs since the 
recession began in December of 2007. Roughly half of those losses have 
occurred in the past 3 months. Our job losses are accelerating, and if 
the Federal Government does not take bold action immediately, these 
losses will only continue to worsen.
  That is why this measure before us is focused first and foremost on 
creating jobs. Every job we create by investing in infrastructure, 
every job we save by providing extra funds to State and local 
governments, is one more American who will know their Government has 
done everything it can to help its citizens recover from this terrible 
economic crisis.
  The total appropriations in the amended bill are $290 billion. Some 
have suggested that we in the Senate have paid too high a price in our 
efforts to reach a bipartisan solution. As the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, I am keenly aware of the adjustments that 
have been made to this legislation in order to secure the 60

[[Page S2064]]

votes we need. Nonetheless, I know that $290 billion is far superior to 
nothing, which is what we would have if we do not garner 60 votes. This 
remains a very strong bill that will make a difference in the lives of 
millions of Americans.
  As I stated before, nothing is more important than the more than 3.5 
million jobs that will be created or preserved through this measure. 
Our goal is to find ways to stimulate the private sector through the 
public sector spending. We have no interest in expanding or growing the 
Federal bureaucracy. In fact, this bill will create fewer than 5,000 
new Federal jobs. That is three-tenths of 1 percent--hardly a vast 
growth in our Government.
  We are focused on jump-starting necessary projects that will get this 
economy back on track as quickly as possible. In fact, preliminary CBO 
and Joint Tax scoring shows that for the bill as a whole, including 
spending and tax cuts, 78 percent of the funds will be spent in fiscal 
years 2009 and 2010.
  Some of the opponents of this measure have complained that it has too 
much wasteful spending. Helping States deal with long-term investments 
such as health, education, and science is not wasteful spending. These 
are programs that will directly touch millions of Americans and will 
improve the quality of their lives. Let me say again that there are no 
earmarks in this bill.
  As for some of the other charges leveled by opponents of the bill, I 
can only say that the facts speak for themselves. Despite claims that 
this recovery package contains $150 million for honeybee insurance, 
there is not and there never has been, any language with regard to 
honeybees contained in this legislation.
  There is no funding for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, 
nor for smoking cessation programs, nor for resodding the National 
Mall. As I have already stated, this bill will create fewer than 5,000 
new Federal jobs, which is well short of the 600,000 new Federal jobs 
that some have suggested and predicted.
  The facts speak for themselves. We face a grave economic crisis. We 
have a nation that stood up 3 months ago and voted for change, not for 
more of the same policies that got us into the crisis in the first 
place.
  This legislation is not perfect, but it absolutely represents the 
change that millions of Americans voted for on November 4 last year, 
and I hope my colleagues will join me in giving our citizens the change 
they demanded and vote yes on the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
consumed during the quorum calls this morning be charged equally 
against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish now to talk about a package of 
amendments that hasn't been added to the legislation but has merit. I 
want to put my colleagues on notice that I will be asking unanimous 
consent that this package be added to the legislation.
  On a piece of legislation this large, it is difficult to process 
every amendment that is filed. In fact, over 600 amendments have been 
filed to this bill. We have processed 30 of these, but that leaves 
about 500 not yet voted on.
  The same was true in the Finance Committee, before we took up the 
bill and before it came to the floor. In the committee we had over 200 
amendments filed and we couldn't vote on every one of those. On a 
number of them, I asked Senators to withhold from offering them. For 
some, we were not sure how much they would cost, and for others we 
needed more time to analyze the proposal because they came to us pretty 
quickly and we didn't know what it meant. I asked Senators to hold off 
for a while to figure out what it means, and maybe we can work it out, 
but it would be best to take it to the floor. Many Senators did that. I 
pledged to the Senators I would work with them on the floor.
  We were able to work out many of the amendments. Senator Grassley and 
I reached an agreement on a number of tax and health amendments, and 
they are reflected in an amendment that has been filed. As our staffs 
looked at these amendments, we worked out an agreement on a lot of 
these amendments and they are contained in the managers' amendment I am 
talking about. Some were technical in nature. We have several, for 
example, health-related provisions that clarify the legislative 
language to make sure it reflects what the Finance Committee voted to 
report to the Senate.
  Other provisions are modifications of provisions in the underlying 
bill. For example, one of the provisions makes sure military personnel 
can receive the Making Work Pay credit even if their spouse is not a 
U.S. citizen. Another provision expands on a proposal included in the 
Finance Committee to help companies deleverage and buy back some of 
their debt.
  Other provisions are new, but they are good ideas and simply didn't 
get a vote. Ms. Snowe, for example, has proposed reducing the estimated 
taxes that small businesses have to pay quarterly, since most of them 
will have fewer or no profits this year. That provision is also 
included in the managers' package.
  While I believe adding these proposals will improve the bill, it is 
my understanding there is likely to be an objection to my request. We 
could not include every amendment in the package. We have done the best 
we can. I think it would improve upon the bill if this package were 
adopted.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to call up 
my amendment No. 572, the so-called managers' amendment; that the 
amendment be adopted, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I must object. Before I do so, I will 
make this little statement. Obviously, the chairman, in keeping his 
word to me, has gone on to deliver on that word by working out 
arrangements on some amendments I wanted. It might look confusing to 
the public at large as to why on this side we are objecting. As we do 
things in the Senate on unanimous consent, any one person can object.
  We have asked a lot of Members on our side what they thought about 
this particular UC request because we knew about it ahead of time. On 
behalf of a number of Members on our side of the aisle, acting for 
them, I must and do reluctantly object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if I may have the floor, I wish to make 
some remarks about the stimulus bill generally and about an upcoming 
vote we have in the Senate that we call waiving the Budget Act.
  Today, the Senate will consider whether we should apply budget 
discipline to this bill before us. Yesterday, there was a lot of 
revision, or perhaps editing, of recent budget history, and I come to 
the floor to speak about it in an intellectually honest way. Even our 
President alluded to it. I agree with the President that there is a lot 
of revisionism in the debate. The revisionist history basically boils 
down to two conclusions:
  One, that all of the ``good'' fiscal history of the 1990s was derived 
from a partisan tax increase of 1993; and, two, that all of the ``bad'' 
fiscal history of this decade we are in now is attributable to the 
bipartisan tax relief plans of 2001 and 2003, and maybe some lesser tax 
bills.
  Not surprisingly, nearly all of the revisionists who spoke generally 
oppose tax relief, and somehow always seem to support tax increases. 
The same crew generally supports spending increases and, not oddly, 
opposes spending cuts.
  In the debate so far on this bill, called the stimulus package, many 
on this side have pointed out some key undeniable facts. The bill 
before us, with interest included, increases the deficit by over $1 
trillion. The bill before us is a heavy stew of spending increases and 
refundable tax credits, seasoned with small pieces of tax relief.

[[Page S2065]]

The bill before us has new temporary spending that, if made permanent, 
will burden future budget deficits by over $1 trillion.
  That antirecessionary spending, together with lower tax receipts, 
plus the TARP activities, has set a fiscal table of a deficit of $1.2 
trillion. That is the highest deficit, as a percentage of the economy, 
in post-World War II history.
  It is not a pretty fiscal picture, and it is going to get a lot 
uglier as a result of this bill. So for the folks who see this bill as 
an opportunity to recover America, with Government taking a larger 
share of the economy over the long term, I say congratulations. That is 
where the revisionist history comes from. It is a strategy to divert, 
through a twisted blame game, from the facts before us.
  How is history revisionist? I want to take each conclusion, one by 
one.
  The first conclusion is that all of the good fiscal history was 
derived from that 1993 tax increase. To knock down this canard, all you 
have to do is look at this chart I put up.
  This chart was not produced by a bunch of Republicans. This chart was 
produced by the Clinton administration. We can see down in the right 
corner, the ``Office of Management and Budget.''
  The much ballyhooed 1993 partisan tax increase accounts for 13 
percent of deficit reduction in the 1990s. We can see in green the 1993 
tax increase that has been ballyhooed about the floor of this body 
several times did not have as much to do with deficit reduction as we 
are led to believe.
  What is more, fiscal revisionist historians in this body tend to 
forget who the players were. They are correct that there was a 
Democratic President in the White House, but they conveniently forget 
that Republicans controlled the Congress for the period where the 
deficit came down and actually turned into a surplus. They tend to 
forget that they fought the principle of a balanced budget that was the 
centerpiece of my party's fiscal policy.
  Remember the Government shutdown of 1995? I want the people on the 
other side of the aisle to remember that, remember what it was all 
about. It was about a plan to balance the budget. Republicans paid a 
political price for forcing the issue. But in 1997, President Clinton 
agreed.
  Recall as well all through the 1990s what the yearend battles were 
about. On one side, congressional Democrats and the Clinton 
administration pushed for more spending. On the other side, 
congressional Republicans were pushing for tax relief. In the end, both 
sides compromised. That is what our Government and Constitution forces, 
and a lot of that is done because in the Senate we have rules that do 
not allow one party to push something through.
  That is the real fiscal history of the 1990s.
  Now let's turn to the other conclusion of the revisionist fiscal 
historians. That conclusion is that in this decade, since the year 
2000, all fiscal problems are attributable to the widespread tax relief 
enacted in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2006.
  In 2001, President Bush came into office. Just last night, we heard 
on television about all of the problems today are the result of the 
last 8 years. Let's take a look at that.
  President Bush inherited an economy that was careening downhill. 
Investments started to go flat in 2000. Do you know NASDAQ lost 50 
percent of its value in the year 2000, not in the year 2001 and beyond? 
Then came the economic shocks of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I might 
add, we had 40 or more months of downturn in the manufacturing index 
that started in February 2000, also before President Bush became 
President. And then we add in the corporate scandals to that economic 
environment. We had the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
  It is true, as the fiscal year 2001 came to a close, the projected 
surplus turned into a deficit. I have a chart that shows the start of 
this decade's fiscal history right here. As we can see, in just the 
right time, the 2001 tax relief plan started to kick in. The deficit 
grew smaller. This pattern continued through 2007.
  I have another chart that compares the tax receipts for the 4 years 
after the much ballyhooed 1993 tax increase and the 4-year period after 
the 2003 tax cuts. If we go to the tax increase, the blue line, we can 
see there was some uptick, but it stayed flat. Look at tax relief 
coming, the red line, what that has done for income into the Federal 
Treasury.
  On a year-after-year basis, this chart compares the change in 
revenues as a percentage of GDP. In 1993, the Clinton tax increase 
brought in more revenue as compared to the 2003 tax cut. But that trend 
reversed as both policies moved along. We can see how the extra revenue 
went up over time relative to the flat line of the 1993 tax increase.
  So let's get the fiscal history right. The progrowth tax-and-trade 
policies of the 1990s, along with a peace dividend, had a lot more to 
do with the deficit reduction in the 1990s than the 1993 tax increase 
did. In this decade, deficits went down after tax relief plans were put 
into full effect.
  That is the past. We need to make sure we understand it. But what is 
most important is the future. All I can say is that my President, 
President Obama, talked about the future all during the campaign. Why 
Members of his party have been talking about the last 8 years and not 
about the future, I don't know. We need to talk about the future. 
People in our States send us here to deal with the future. They do not 
send us here to flog one another like partisan cartoon cutout 
characters and to do it over past policy. They do not send us here to 
endlessly point fingers of blame around.
  Now let's focus on the fiscal consequences of the bill in front of 
us. That is what the vote in less than an hour is all about.
  President Obama rightly focused us on the future with his eloquence 
during that campaign, as I have already referred to. But I would like 
to be more specific and paraphrase a quote from the President's 
nomination acceptance speech: We need a President who can face the 
threats of the future, not grasping at the ideas of the past.
  My President was right. We need a President--and I would like to add 
Congressmen and Senators--who spends all the time facing the threats of 
the future. This bill, as currently written, poses considerable threats 
to our fiscal future. Senator McCain's spending trigger amendment 
showed us the way. We can rewrite this bill to retain its stimulative 
effect but turn off the spending when the recovery occurs.
  Grasping at ideas of the past or playing the partisan blame game will 
not deal with the threats to our fiscal future. With a vote to sustain 
the budget point of order against this bill, I say to my fellow 
Senators, we can start to deal with threats to the fiscal future in the 
way Senator McCain would or the way other people might bring good ideas 
forth.
  According to the Senate Finance Republican tax staff analysis of the 
Joint Committee on Taxation's revenue estimate of the Nelson-Collins 
substitute amendment, less than $6 billion is provided in that 
amendment in tax relief for small businesses. Let me be clear, small 
business tax relief makes up less than 1 percent of the bill. I think 
that is truly outrageous. Small businesses create approximately three-
fourths of the new jobs in our economy. So if this bill is all about 
jobs, certainly more tax relief would have been provided to small 
businesses because they are the job-creating engines of our economy.
  Less than 1 percent of the bill going to small business tax relief is 
a puny amount. For example, according to Senator Nelson's Web site 
summary of this bill, here are just some of the provisions that the 
Senate Democratic leadership has spent more money on than small 
business tax relief.
  The Senate Democratic leadership is putting your money where their 
mouth isn't and saying that these items are a higher priority to them 
than small business tax relief is. Some of these items are: $7 billion 
for Federal buildings fund, $6.4 billion for State and Tribal 
assistance EPA grants, and $13.9 billion for Pell grants. While some of 
the provisions in the bill are worthy of being done in regular order, 
certainly none should get higher funding than small business tax relief 
because this is supposedly a stimulus bill that is about creating jobs.
  Mr. President, in remarks a few minutes ago, the senior Senator from 
New York referred to my amendment on the current year's alternative 
minimum tax, AMT, hold-harmless or patch. He was correct that I pushed 
for the patch very early in the stimulus discussions.

[[Page S2066]]

I mentioned it at before and after our bipartisan Finance Committee 
Members' meeting. I filed it at the Finance Committee markup. To be 
fair, so did Senator Menendez. The committee adopted the AMT patch 
amendment.
  If I heard the Senator from New York correctly, he agreed with me on 
the merits of adding the AMT pacth. His point seemed to be to say I, 
and others who oppose the bill in its present form, we are taking an 
inconsistent bill.
  Let me repeat what we, on this side, have been saying about the need 
for this bill. We agree there needs to be a stimulus. But we need to do 
it right. Including the AMT pacth improves what is an otherwise poorly 
designed bill.
  The patch does not remedy the outyear spending problem. It does not 
eliminate the rest of new broad entitlement spending.
  I am hopeful that, in conference, the senior Senator from New York, 
and other members of the Democratic leadership, will fight for the 
Senate position on the AMT patch. There are 124,000 Iowa families who 
could face an average tax increase of $2,300 per family if the AMT 
patch is not enacted. I am looking out for them. I hope the Democratic 
leadership is looking out for them too.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for budget discipline, sustaining the 
point of order.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President and fellow Senators, I came today to make a 
few remarks regarding the vote we are about to have, in about half an 
hour, on the so-called ``stimulus'' package. I think everyone who is a 
Member of this body agrees with the magnitude of the problem. I have 
heard my colleagues on the other side and my colleagues on this side 
speak with great clarity and sometimes with great passion about the 
problem. Clearly, the American economy is in dire straits. Everyone 
agrees with that. The amount of passion that one speaks with neither 
raises nor lowers that level.
  I heard the President of the United States last night say there were 
some people who thought there should be no action taken by our Federal 
Government. I am not aware of those people. I am sure there are some 
around, but I think most people agree the main responsibility of the 
Government of the United States is to protect its people, but closely 
behind that is to regulate monetary policy and economic policy. Nations 
have been doing both of those things for many years. My problem with 
the discussion we have had over recent weeks has been with the focus of 
the solution, and I believe the focus is misfocused.
  The President agrees, we agree, and most economists agree that 
economic recovery will require a three-path solution. The first is 
attention to the banking sector, and that comprises two different 
parts. No. 1 is continued viability of our bank system; and No. 2, and 
most importantly, reestablishing credit flow, which is badly impaired 
at this time.
  The second path is the housing sector. Most economists agree it was 
the housing sector that led us into this difficulty and it is going to 
be the housing sector that leads us out or, if it does not lead us out, 
at least it has to recover before we will see any decent movement in 
the economy.
  And third is the Government expenditure item. That particular item 
has received all the ink, all the publicity, and all the discussion in 
recent weeks. The focus should not be on Government spending. The focus 
of the solution should be on credit flow and on the housing market, and 
it is not. To that, I object.
  When the President very kindly came to the Republican conference, we 
had a spirited discussion on these matters. I was delighted to see that 
he agreed it was going to take a three-path solution to get us out of 
this. I was disappointed that his enthusiasm continued to be for the 
spending side, which of course is a very easy thing to do and something 
which this town is particularly adept at. Again, my problem is the 
focus. Spending by the Government is not going to resolve this problem.
  This proposal has some job creation--that is the so-called 
``stimulus'' package--and for that I am grateful. The best example of 
that is roads and bridges. However, if you take a percentage of the 
amount of money we are talking about, that is only about 3 percent of 
the bill. There are lots of parts of this bill that do not do anything 
to stimulate the economy, and I am not going to spend time on that this 
morning, because they have been well publicized, and I have no doubt 
will be publicized more in the future.
  The other difficulty with the bill, if you take the number of jobs 
the President is attempting to create or to protect, the cost is in the 
hundreds of thousands of dollars per job. That, as much as anything, 
shows how difficult it is for the Government to get us out of this by 
spending. It is a futile effort. We have between 7 and 8 percent 
unemployment in this country, which means over 92 percent of Americans 
are employed. What happens if unemployment continues to accelerate? The 
Federal Government cannot borrow or print enough money to salvage all 
those jobs at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars per job. The 
Federal Government simply can't do it.
  Now, there is an entity that can do it. There is an entity that can 
create enough jobs and protect enough jobs. That entity is called the 
free market system. It is entrepreneurs, it is risk takers, it is 
capitalists. Those people and those entities created these jobs to 
begin with. They can do it again. That entity, the free market system, 
has created the most successful culture in the history of the world. 
For the free market system to operate, there must be free-flowing 
credit, and of course that does depend upon Government policy. That is 
why I come down on the side of needing to focus more on that particular 
aspect of this problem.
  I listened to the President last night, and he talked about the $800 
billion number. He said he did not reach up in the air and pull that 
number out of the air. I wish I knew where that number came from. I 
have yet to see the formula that was devised, either by the President 
or, more likely, his advisers who came up with this $800 billion 
figure. Indeed, that formula has a lot of value. If that formula could 
be put on paper, every economy in the world, every country in the 
world, would be very interested in that valuable commodity. Because if 
indeed you can simply take that formula and come up with a number and 
then borrow enough money and spend that money to get the economy moving 
again, this is very simple.
  Here is the problem with all of this. That $800 billion number, or 
whatever number it turns out to be--and of course when you add interest 
in, it will be well over a trillion dollars, or somewhere in the 
neighborhood of $1.2 trillion--that money has got to come from 
somewhere. It is not free money. The way America is going to get that 
money is it is going to go out and borrow it. We all know what happens 
when America goes out and borrows money. Who provides us with that 
money? The major contributor of purchasing our debt is the Chinese 
Government and the Chinese people. There is no plan for repayment of 
that debt. What business in America, what entity in America would think 
of borrowing any amount, let alone an amount this size, without a clear 
and cogent plan for repaying that money?
  Keynesian economics teaches us we can spend our way out of a problem. 
Keynesian economics has been proven over and over again to be a great 
theory, a wonderful theory, a source of hope, but it has been a total 
failure. It didn't work for the Japanese in the 1990s, it didn't work 
for this country back in the Great Depression, and it didn't even work 
last year, when everyone was given $600. It didn't even put a blip on 
the screen in trying to get us back to prosperity. Keynesian 
economics--government spending--to get us back on track, has never 
worked before and it will not work again. If it does work, it will be 
the first time in history, and it will defy uniform history that has 
shown us in the past that it won't work.
  I hope when we go home during the recess time that this economy is 
moving in a different direction. I truly

[[Page S2067]]

hope that is the case. And I hope we can be arguing on this floor 
whether it was this enormous spending package that did it or whether it 
was the vagaries of an undulating world economy, or whether it was 
economic policy dealing with the banking sector and the housing sector 
that turned it around.
  I am encouraged by the fact the President has committed that he will 
turn his attention to the other two paths in this three-path system, 
the banking sector and the housing sector, after this package is 
passed.
  The title of this bill, the ``economic stimulus'' bill, is truly a 
giant fraud on the American people. It is not a stimulus package. It is 
a giant spending package. Admittedly, there are parts of it that one 
could argue are stimulus, but it is so de minimis that one cannot call 
this an economic stimulus package.
  Like everyone on this floor, I am concerned about the future of our 
children and our grandchildren. Borrowing $800 billion-plus, mostly 
from the Chinese Government and the Chinese people, and indenturing our 
children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren to work to 
repay the Chinese Government and the Chinese people so we can spend 
that money today I believe is fundamentally wrong. I don't believe we 
should indenture future generations of Americans, and for that reason 
this Senator will be casting his vote ``no'' on behalf of the people of 
the great State of Idaho.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we had an opportunity to hear the 
initial or, as we call it, the maiden speech of the new Senator from 
Idaho, and I wanted to be on the floor to listen to his words. This is 
a great opportunity to welcome him to the Senate and to encourage all 
our colleagues to read what he had to say about this massive spending 
bill we have before us.
  I think his views were right on target, and I congratulate him on his 
first speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I also congratulate the Senator from 
Idaho, my neighbor. It is a wonderful opportunity to hear the Senator 
from Idaho give his first speech, and it is also great that he is, as I 
say, my neighbor. I deeply appreciate the shared values we have in our 
part of the country. I might say to my good friend that although I 
don't agree with the conclusions he has reached, there will be many 
opportunities for us to work together on issues that affect our part of 
the country.
  I might also say that--and I think all economists agree with this 
point--every dollar spent is stimulative--every dollar. Every single 
dollar in this bill is stimulative--every dollar. All economists would 
say that--all economists.
  Now, it is true that some dollars are more stimulative than other 
dollars. Basically, economists say that dollars spent on roads and 
bridges and infrastructure and so forth are more stimulative than 
dollars spent on tax reductions. They all agree on that. In fact, the 
Joint Committee on Taxation and the CBO sent a letter recently--
actually, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, sent a letter to 
this Senate recently--making that very point, and they categorized how 
stimulative each dollar spent is. The more it is taxes, the less 
stimulative it is. But it does stimulate the economy, no doubt about 
it. The more it is not taxes, the more it is bridges and roads and 
infrastructure, the more it stimulates the economy. There is no doubt 
about that. And then there is a middle category, which focuses on 
unemployment benefits, Medicaid, and food stamps. That is very 
stimulative, because those are the lower income people who spend the 
money. To say the dollars in this bill are not stimulative is flatly 
not true. Every dollar spent is stimulative.

  Second, analysis of CBO and Joint Tax, the Congressional Budget 
Office, and the Joint Committee on Taxation, shows that 99 percent of 
all the dollars in the Finance Committee bill are spent in the first 2 
years. There is nothing permanent about this. I have heard Senators on 
the other side say this is permanent. It is not permanent; 79 percent 
of all the dollars in this bill, according to the CBO and Joint 
Committee on Tax, are spent in the first 2 years--about four-fifths, 80 
percent, in the first 2 years. That is not permanent; that is spent in 
the first 2 years.
  No. 1, every dollar spent is stimulative. Some is more stimulative--
roads and bridges more than taxes. No. 2, this is temporary; 79 percent 
of the whole bill is spent in the first 2 years. No. 3, again, this is 
not permanent, but it is all going to be spent, four-fifths, 80 percent 
in the first 2 years.
  I am a little surprised Senators say we should not spend money here. 
That is exactly what the Government did back in the 1930s. That is the 
Hoover approach. Don't spend money, don't borrow money because that is 
going to add to the deficit, add to the debt. That was what was said 
back then and look what happened. Every economist says that was a 
mistake, the Government should have gotten involved, we should have 
done something, we should have spent the money. And that is what we are 
doing.
  Also, what is the alternative to not spending. What is the 
alternative to not passing this bill? The alternative is conditions are 
much worse. This bill is going to create or save 3.4 million jobs. No 
bill, 3 to 4 million jobs, more jobs lost than currently. This is a no-
brainer.
  Some Senators try to get us sidetracked. Lawyers call it red 
herrings, one theory or another, which is not the heart of the problem. 
The heart of the problem is people are losing jobs by massive numbers. 
We have to do something, we have to do something big. I, frankly, think 
in this Congress not much of anything happens most of the time unless 
one of two conditions occurs. One is a crisis. Then Congress acts and 
does something--Pearl Harbor, Sputnik, Depression. Another is if there 
is extraordinary political leadership.
  I say we certainly have a crisis, and we certainly have an 
extraordinary President. Combined--the President wants this, this is a 
crisis we have to deal with--let's stand and do what the American 
people want us to do and not haggle, not bicker, not get partisan. This 
is pretty simple stuff. It is a big problem and requires a big 
solution. This solution is a good solution. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support it because it is the right thing to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think the Congressional Budget Office, 
our top adviser, advises us there will be some stimulus in the next 2 
to 3 years. But over a 10-year period, our own budget office says the 
crowding out of private people being able to borrow money because the 
Government has already borrowed it, and the substantial interest 
payment on the economy as a result of taking out this debt, will result 
in a net negative growth in GDP over 10 years. We are talking about a 
short-term gain for a long-term negative and certainly in the next 10 
years the stimulus is long since gone then, and we will have that debt 
burden every year thereafter because there is no plan to pay it back.
  Mr. Gary Becker, Nobel Prize winner in economics, the University of 
Chicago, in the Wall Street Journal today raised this question:

       How much will the stimulus package moving in the Congress 
     really stimulate the economy?

  That is what he asked. The evaluations to date have been incomplete. 
This is what he says his conclusion is:

       So our conclusion is that the net stimulus to the short-
     term GDP will not be zero--

  Certainly $800-plus billion cannot be zero. He goes on to say--

     and will be positive, but the stimulus is likely to be modest 
     in magnitude. Some economists have assumed that every $1 
     billion spent by the government through the stimulus package 
     would raise short-term GDP by $1.5 billion. Or, in economics 
     jargon, that the multiplier is 1.5.
       That seems too optimistic, given the nature of the spending 
     programs being proposed. We believe a multiplier well below 
     one seems much more likely.

  He goes on to make some other points and raise questions about the 
nature of this package.
  We have a budget process in this Congress. In the Senate, and the 
Budget Committee of which I am a Member--meeting right now, I just left 
the committee--we set a spending limit for America each year. That 
limit is supposed to be complied with unless we declare an emergency. 
When we declare

[[Page S2068]]

an emergency, then we can spend over the budget. I wish to say, first, 
we are getting in too much of a habit of declaring emergencies, tacking 
all kinds of spending programs onto those emergency programs and, as a 
result, we are collapsing the power and effectiveness of the budget 
process.
  For example, we had over $100 billion on Katrina. A lot of that was 
needed, but all kinds of things not related to Katrina were added 
because if you add it onto an emergency spending bill you don't have to 
account for it. It does not have to compete with any other national 
spending priority. Otherwise, you have to go in through your committees 
and argue that this spending is justified.
  I think when you look at other things such as the TARP spending last 
fall, $700 billion we authorized, and then authorized the second half 
of it earlier this year, that was outside the budget process. We are 
going to see that this stimulus, every penny of it, is on top of the 
largest debt we have ever had in America. The Congressional Budget 
Office scores the debt this year to be $1.2 trillion, without the 
stimulus. Last year, at $455 billion, we hit the highest deficit in the 
history of the country. So this is more than twice that added to it.
  Then we are going to have another financial Wall Street bailout 
package presumably presented to us soon. It will also be spending 
outside the budget.
  I wish to repeat: Every penny of the $1.2 trillion of the stimulus 
package will add to the U.S. Government debt. The debt burden is so 
high that CBO projects the gross domestic product 10 years from now 
will be even lower as a result of the passage of this legislation than 
if we did not pass it, over a 10-year period.
  I do not believe we can continue to spend such large sums of money 
without knowing that the money is well spent, without having the kind 
of oversight and hearings we need. We are rushing programs through in 
great numbers. Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
our Democratic colleague, estimates there is $125 billion in what he 
calls bow wave money that will increase the spending permanently out of 
this bill; at least 125. Another one of our Senators says it will be 
$300 billion that will be continued and not be temporary. So there are 
seven budget points of order that will lie against this legislation. I 
expect to offer that.
  It would mean we would have to vote 60 votes and those 60 votes would 
say we understand it violates the budget, but we want to spend it 
anyway. That is what the effort will be about.
  Let me briefly point out the significance of the legislation. 
Everybody wants to do something. I understand that. We need to do some 
things. But we have to ask ourselves responsibly what has happened.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Montana has 1 
minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from 
Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, since this recession began, 3.6 million 
mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and husbands have lost 
their jobs. On the Senate floor today, we have the power to keep 3 to 4 
million more Americans from losing their jobs. We have crafted this 
bill to accomplish this end. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance 
Committee's legislation will take effect in the first 2 years and 79 
percent of the total bill's fiscal effects will take place in the first 
2 years.
  The question is merely whether we will act. Our duty is clear. Let us 
reject half measures. Let us reject delay. Let us not be found on the 
wrong side of history. Let us rise to the economic challenge of our 
generation. Let us preserve millions of American jobs and let us pass 
this bill today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in 1844, a man came to Washington 
recognizing the country had been in a deep recession in 1837 and it 
spilled over a number of years. He came to Washington with an idea. He 
came to Congress with an idea. What he wanted to do was build some 
power poles, put some wire on them, and he said if he did that, this 
infrastructure--and he had money to do it--would revolutionize 
communications in America.
  This man, Samuel Morse, convinced Congress to do that. They 
appropriated $40,000. In that day that was a huge amount of money. The 
Federal Government appropriated that money and a telegraph line was 
built between Washington, DC, and Baltimore, MD. The rest is history. 
It changed America. It changed the world. The first telegraph line 
revolutionized communications. It was so significant.
  Some opposed funding for the new invention that Morse was talking 
about, but once the wires connecting the two cities were laid, our 
country's communication structure, as I mentioned, was changed forever. 
What started as a government investment became a major private sector 
enterprise, creating thousands of jobs and new opportunities to connect 
people and ideas. If that sounds familiar, it is exactly what created 
one of the greatest economic opportunities of our lifetime--not only of 
our lifetime but ever--the Internet.
  Throughout our history the Federal Government has catalyzed good 
ideas, invested in the ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the American 
people, and let the private sector flourish--Samuel Morse, the 
Internet. Faced with an economic crisis today, we have an opportunity 
to make similar investments that will help our country prosper in the 
years to come.
  Last night, President Obama brought his case of economic recovery 
directly to the American people. He clearly explained that no new 
President relishes the thought of starting an administration with a 
major investment of public funds to clean up the economic mess left by 
the previous administration. But he had no choice, as he explained so 
well in Elkhart, IN, yesterday and last night to the American people.
  Not one Member of Congress or one single American family relishes the 
difficult choices left for us to make. But with a growing likelihood 
that this crisis will grow into what the President has termed a 
``possible catastrophe,'' the worst decision would be indecision.
  The President, as I mentioned, spoke in the city of Elkhart, IN, a 
place where unemployment has risen in a short period of time from 4 
percent to over 15 percent. But some say the unemployment in Elkhart is 
truly over 20 percent.
  In Nevada the latest figures have surpassed 9 percent unemployment, 
with no sign of retreat in sight. The people of Elkhart understand our 
economy will not turn around overnight. Reno and Carson City and Las 
Vegas have patience for the tough choices in the hard days to come. The 
American people understand that. But the American people have no 
patience for a Congress that points fingers, drags its feet or fails to 
act.
  It is not common--in fact, try to think of the last time the National 
Association of Manufacturers--NAM, the United States Chamber of 
Commerce, and the AFL-CIO joined in support of legislation, any 
legislation. But they have in this legislation before us. Each of these 
organizations understands how important it is for us to pass this bill 
and to get it to the President's desk.
  Yesterday, the Senate took a major step toward doing so by voting 61 
to 36 to lift a filibuster and move forward to a vote. Now we move to 
final passage of President Obama's economic recovery plan, but our work 
doesn't end there. We must move swiftly with our colleagues in the 
House to complete work on the legislation and send it to the 
President's desk as soon as possible. The time for debate on this 
legislation was productive but it is over.
  With common sense as our compass, we must now answer the urgent call 
of the American people for action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe we need to exceed the budget 
and to expend targeted, temporary money that can improve the economy 
and will make some positive steps. Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize winner, 
today said he does not believe this is an effective way to do so. 
Others have said the same. I believe greater jobs can be created at 
substantially less funding.
  I make a point of order that the pending amendment offered by the 
Senators from Nebraska and Maine,

[[Page S2069]]

Mr. Nelson and Ms. Collins, would increase the on-budget deficit for 
the sum of the years 2009 through 2013 and the sum of the years 2009 
through 2018. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment 
pursuant to section 201(a) of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the order before the 
Senate takes into consideration the move to waive that; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Nevada will suspend 
briefly, under the previous order, the motion to waive is considered 
made.
  Mr. REID. So the only thing left is the yeas and nays; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is correct.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  It appears there is.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Gregg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
37. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CARDIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 570, 
offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and the Senator from 
Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The question in on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading 
of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Gregg
       
  The bill (H.R. 1), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
  The Acting President pro tempore appointed Mr. Inouye, Mr. Baucus, 
Mr. Reid of Nevada, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Grassley conferees on the part 
of the Senate.

                          ____________________