[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 142 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5853-S5891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            EXTENDING THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2832, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2832) to extend the Generalized System of 
     Preferences, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Casey) amendment No. 633, to extend and modify 
     trade adjustment assistance.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 634

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 634 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 634.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide Taiwan with critically needed United States-built 
 multirole fighter aircraft to strengthen its self-defense capability 
           against the increasing military threat from China)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SALE OF F-16 AIRCRAFT TO TAIWAN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Department of Defense, in its 2011 report to 
     Congress on ``Military and Security Developments Involving 
     the People's Republic of China,'' found that ``China 
     continued modernizing its military in 2010, with a focus on 
     Taiwan contingencies, even as cross-Strait relations 
     improved. The PLA seeks the capability to deter Taiwan 
     independence and influence Taiwan to settle the dispute on 
     Beijing's terms. In pursuit of this objective, Beijing is 
     developing capabilities intended to deter, delay, or deny 
     possible U.S. support for the island in the event of 
     conflict. The balance of cross-Strait military forces and 
     capabilities continues to shift in the mainland's favor.'' In 
     this report, the Department of Defense also concludes that, 
     over the next decade, China's air force will remain primarily 
     focused on ``building the capabilities required to pose a 
     credible military threat to Taiwan and U.S. forces in East 
     Asia, deter Taiwan independence, or influence Taiwan to 
     settle the dispute on Beijing's terms''.
       (2) The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a 
     preliminary assessment of the status and capabilities of 
     Taiwan's air force in an unclassified report, dated January 
     21, 2010. The DIA found that, ``[a]lthough Taiwan has nearly 
     400 combat aircraft in service, far fewer of these are 
     operationally capable.'' The report concluded, ``Many of 
     Taiwan's fighter aircraft are close to or beyond service 
     life, and many require extensive maintenance support. The 
     retirement of Mirage and F-5 aircraft will reduce the total 
     size of the Taiwan Air Force.''
       (3) Since 2006, authorities from Taiwan have made repeated 
     requests to purchase 66 F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft 
     from the United States, in an effort to modernize the air 
     force of Taiwan and maintain its self-defense capability.
       (4) According to a report by the Perryman Group, a private 
     economic research and analysis firm, the requested sale of F-
     16C/Ds to Taiwan ``would generate some $8,700,000,000 in 
     output (gross product) and more than 87,664 person-years of 
     employment in the US,'' including 23,407 direct jobs, while 
     ``economic benefits would likely be realized in 44 states and 
     the District of Columbia''.
       (5) The sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan would both sustain 
     existing high-skilled jobs in key United States manufacturing 
     sectors and create new ones.
       (6) On August 1, 2011, a bipartisan group of 181 members of 
     the House of Representatives sent a letter to the President, 
     expressing support for the sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan. On May 
     26, 2011, a bipartisan group of 45 members of the Senate sent 
     a similar letter to the President, expressing support for the 
     sale. Two other members of the Senate wrote separately to the 
     President or the Secretary of State in 2011 and expressed 
     support for this sale.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) a critical element to maintaining peace and stability 
     in Asia in the face of China's two-decade-long program of 
     military modernization and expansion of military capabilities 
     is ensuring a militarily strong and confident Taiwan;
       (2) a Taiwan that is confident in its ability to deter 
     Chinese aggression will increase its ability to proceed in 
     developing peaceful relations with China in areas of mutual 
     interest;
       (3) the cross-Strait military balance between China and our 
     longstanding strategic partner, Taiwan, has clearly shifted 
     in China's favor;
       (4) China's military expansion poses a clear and present 
     danger to Taiwan, and this

[[Page S5854]]

     threat has very serious implications for the ability of the 
     United States to fulfill its security obligations to allies 
     in the region and protect our vital United States national 
     interests in East Asia;
       (5) Taiwan's air force continues to deteriorate, and it 
     needs additional advanced multirole fighter aircraft in order 
     to modernize its fleet and maintain a sufficient self-defense 
     capability;
       (6) the United States has a statutory obligation under the 
     Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) to provide 
     Taiwan the defense articles necessary to enable Taiwan to 
     maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities, in furtherance 
     of maintaining peace and stability in the western Pacific 
     region;
       (7) in order to comply with the Taiwan Relations Act, the 
     United States must provide Taiwan with additional advanced 
     multirole fighter aircraft, as well as significant upgrades 
     to Taiwan's existing fleet of multirole fighter aircraft; and
       (8) the proposed sale of F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft 
     to Taiwan would have significant economic benefits to the 
     United States economy.
       (c) Sale of Aircraft.--The President shall carry out the 
     sale of no fewer than 66 F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft 
     to Taiwan.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor and spoke 
about my intention to offer this amendment, which is now pending before 
the Senate, which would require the U.S. Government to sell 66 F-16C/D 
aircraft to the Government of Taiwan pursuant to our responsibilities 
under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, passed with bipartisan support 
of the Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. Under 
this law, it is the responsibility of the U.S. Government to provide 
our ally Taiwan with sufficient defensive weapons in order to defend 
itself against any possible aggression by Communist China or from any 
other source. I spoke at some length about this yesterday, and I won't 
reprise all of those arguments.
  At the outset, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
3 letters--1 signed by 45 Senators supporting this sale of F-16s to 
Taiwan and 2 separate letters from Senator Lugar, the ranking member of 
the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, 
for a total of 47 Senators who are on record as supporting this sale.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 26, 2011.
     President Barack Obama,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express serious 
     concern about the military imbalance in the Taiwan Strait. To 
     maintain peace and stability in the Strait, it is critical 
     that your administration accept Taiwan's Letter of Request 
     (LOR) and move quickly to notify Congress of the sale of 66 
     F-16 C/D aircraft that Taiwan needs in order to modernize its 
     air force.
       Successive reports issued by U.S. and Taiwanese defense 
     authorities clearly outline the direct threat faced by Taiwan 
     as a result of China's unprecedented military buildup. 
     Beijing presently has more than 1,400 missiles aimed at 
     Taiwan, and China is in the process of deploying next 
     generation Chinese and Russian manufactured ships, fighter 
     aircraft, and submarines. Military experts in both Taiwan and 
     the United States have raised concerns that Taiwan is losing 
     the qualitative advantage in defensive arms that has long 
     served as its primary military deterrent against China.
       Taiwan desperately needs new tactical fighter aircraft. 
     Within the next decade Taiwan will retire 70% of its fighter 
     force structure. Its F-5s have reached the end of their 
     utility, its Mirage fighters lack parts and life-cycle 
     support, and its Indigenous Defense Fighters are being 
     converted to a trainer role. Additionally, Taiwan's existing 
     145 F-16 A/B fighters all require a mid-life upgrade. With F-
     16s already in its inventory, Taiwan is seeking to combine 
     its fighter fleet around a single airframe with the 
     commensurate cost and operational benefits.
       We are deeply concerned that further delay of the decision 
     to sell F-16s to Taiwan could result in closure of the F-16 
     production line, and urge you to expedite this defense export 
     process before the line closes. Without new fighter aircraft 
     and upgrades to its existing fleet of F-16s, Taiwan will be 
     dangerously exposed to Chinese military threats, aggression 
     and provocation, which pose significant national security 
     implications for the United States.
       The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979 directs both the 
     Congress and the President to make decisions on arms sales to 
     Taiwan based solely on the ``judgment of the needs of 
     Taiwan,'' and we believe that Taiwanese pilots, flying 
     Taiwanese fighter aircraft manufactured in the United States, 
     represent the best first line of defense for our democratic 
     ally, while presenting no offensive threat to China.
       We urge you to act swiftly and provide Taiwan with the F-16 
     C/D aircraft that are critical to meeting our obligations 
     pursuant to the TRA and to preserving peace and security in 
     the Taiwan Strait.
           Sincerely,
         Robert Menendez, James Inhofe, Jim Webb, Jon Kyl, Joseph 
           I. Lieberman, Dan Coats, Tim Johnson, Roger F. Wicker, 
           Ron Wyden, John Cornyn, Benjamin L. Cardin, John 
           Barrasso, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Sessions, Richard 
     Blumenthal, John Boozman, Jon Tester, Tom Coburn, Joe 
     Manchin III, John Hoeven, Bill Nelson, Saxby Chambliss, 
     Barbara Mikulski, Kay Bailey Hutchison, John D. 
     Rockefeller IV, Scott Brown, Herb Kohl, Chuck Grassley, 
     Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, David Vitter, Thad Cochran, Mike 
     Crapo, Johnny Isakson, Mark Kirk, John McCain, Mike Lee, 
     Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, Mike Johanns, Ron Johnson, 
     Richard Burr, Michael B. Enzi, James E. Risch, Susan M. 
     Collins.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                               Committee on Foreign Relations,

                                    Washington, DC, April 1, 2011.
     Hon. Hillary R. Clinton,
     Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Clinton: The issue of U.S. defense equipment 
     sales to Taiwan has now become an urgent matter. Taiwan has 
     legitimate defense needs, and its existing capabilities are 
     decaying. Replacement of its tactical aircraft is warranted, 
     is not provocative and is justified.
       While it has acquired some Mirage aircraft, Taiwan has 
     acquired more than 400 tactical aircraft (F-16A/Bs and F-5s) 
     sold and produced in Taiwan from the United States. But there 
     have been no new sales of needed aircraft to Taiwan in many 
     years. Approved transactions involved only lower-level sales 
     and support for its Indigenous Defensive Fighter (IDF)--an 
     aircraft that the Defense Intelligence Agency has assessed 
     faces ``limited combat range and payload capacity [which] 
     restrict its effectiveness in air-to-air combat.''
       Given the decrepit state of Taiwan's F-5s, the service life 
     issues associated with its IDF, and a growing problem faced 
     by all recipient countries in obtaining affordable and 
     sustainable access to spare parts for Mirages, I am very 
     concerned that if the Administration does not act favorably 
     on Taiwan's outstanding Letter of Request (LOR) for sales of 
     F16C/D aircraft, Taiwan will be forced to retire all of its 
     existing F-16A/B aircraft in the next decade, leaving it with 
     no credible air-to-air capability. Since Taiwan already has 
     many U.S. F-16 aircraft, replacement and augmentation of its 
     existing fleet would not affect the qualitative and 
     quantitative military balance in its region, and would also, 
     in turn, greatly assist the U.S. industrial base.
       Any reasonable approach to Taiwan's existing tactical 
     aircraft requirements includes both sustainment of its 
     existing F-1 6A/Bs, but also, sales of new F-16C/Ds. Limiting 
     assistance only to upgrades of F-16A/Bs exacerbates both near 
     and long term air-to-air challenges due to the fact that a 
     substantial number of Taiwan's deployed F-16A/Bs would have 
     to be removed from service in order to undergo upgrades.
       Over a year ago, Assistant Secretary of State for Political 
     Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro assured the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations that your Department would undertake an 
     extensive and honest discussion with the Foreign Relations 
     Committee regarding Taiwan. Such consultations have yet to 
     occur. In my view, a sensible place to start would be with 
     Taiwan's existing tactical aircraft capability, aside from 
     its other air defense challenges.
       I am still awaiting proposed dates from the Department for 
     the initiation of these discussions. In order to be able to 
     produce needed F16C/Ds and deliver them by 2015, or even 
     sooner should Taiwan move quickly, an Administration decision 
     is needed in 2011 to act favorably on the F-16C/D request. I 
     am particularly interested in the Department's responses to 
     key questions: What are the major issues associated with 
     approval of this LOR? Why is the Administration apparently 
     unwilling to act on it? What are the risks and benefits in 
     agreeing to the sale?
       Presently, we have not received any clear and consistent 
     information from the State Department regarding this matter, 
     and I believe it is time to engage in a meaningful 
     consultation with this Committee on Taiwan.
       I look forward to your prompt consideration of this letter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard G. Lugar,
     Ranking Member.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 13, 2011.
     President Barack Obama,
     The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am pleased to join with 47 of my 
     Senate colleagues in urging that your administration move 
     expeditiously to notify Congress of the sale of 66 F-16 C/D 
     aircraft that Taiwan needs in order to modernize its air 
     force.
       Within the next decade Taiwan will retire 70% of its 
     fighter force structure. Its F-5s have reached the end of 
     their utility, its Mirage fighters lack parts and life-cycle 
     support, and its Indigenous Defense Fighters are being 
     converted to a trainer role. Additionally, Taiwan's existing 
     145 F-16 A/B fighters all require a mid-life upgrade. With F-
     16s already in its inventory, Taiwan is seeking to

[[Page S5855]]

     combine its fighter fleet around a single airframe with the 
     commensurate cost and operational benefits.
       The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979 directs both the 
     Congress and the President to make decisions on arms sales to 
     Taiwan based solely on the ``judgment of the needs of 
     Taiwan,'' and I believe that Taiwanese pilots, flying 
     Taiwanese fighter aircraft manufactured in the United States, 
     represent the best first line of defense for our democratic 
     ally, while presenting no offensive threat to China.
       Moreover, I am deeply concerned that further delay of the 
     decision to sell F-16s to Taiwan could result in closure of 
     the F-16 production line, and urge you to expedite this 
     defense export process before the line closes.
       I urge you to act swiftly and provide Taiwan with the F-16 
     C/D aircraft that are critical to meeting our obligations 
     pursuant to the TRA and to preserving peace and security in 
     the Taiwan Strait while strengthening America's economy by 
     keeping the F-16 in production.
           Sincerely,


                                               Lisa Murkowski,

                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as I said, yesterday I spoke about the 
legislation Senator Menendez and I had offered. That is a stand-alone 
bill; this is now an amendment to this pending trade bill. I do believe 
it is appropriate for us to consider this matter in the context of this 
trade bill because, of course, we all recognize and common sense would 
tell us that selling to foreign customers the things that we grow here 
in America or that we manufacture in America sustains jobs right here 
at home. Indeed, we have circulated among various offices what the 
impact on jobs would be all across the country when it comes to the 
sale and manufacture of these F-16s. A lot of jobs would be created in 
America at a time when unemployment is intractably and unacceptably 
high. But that is not the main reason I believe this amendment is so 
important.
  Let me back up to say that yesterday the President did announce that 
he approved military exports to Taiwan, but I wish to address first the 
insufficiency of the response.
  Yesterday, Congress was officially notified by the Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency that the administration had approved a retrofit for 
145 F-16A/B aircraft--aircraft Taiwan already owns. So this is not 
unprecedented. We have already sold Taiwan A/B versions of the F-16. 
But, as the administration acknowledges by saying these need to be 
updated and retrofitted, these are older aircraft and need to be 
modernized in order to be effective.
  There is no question that these upgrades on the existing 145 F-16 
aircraft are necessary, but it is not sufficient to deal with the 
airpower needs of our Taiwanese allies. You can see by this chart the 
disparity between what the People's Republic of China has--about 2,300 
operational combat aircraft versus 490 operational combat aircraft--
owned by the Government of Taiwan.
  But what I think the President's decision fails to acknowledge is the 
fact that many of the aircraft being flown now in Taiwan by the Taiwan 
Air Force are French Mirage aircraft which are some 20 years old or 
American F-5 aircraft which were first delivered in 1975 through 1985 
but which are now virtually obsolete. It is for that reason the sale of 
these additional 66 F-16C/D version aircraft is so important--to 
replace those obsolete French Mirages and F-5s.
  Taiwan's request had been, as I indicated earlier, not for the 
retrofit or for new aircraft, but they wanted both. The administration 
should have approved both, and that is exactly what 47 Members of this 
Senate stated--the bipartisan letters I have admitted into the Record--
encourage the administration to do to make the right decision and to do 
both. But since the administration chose only to go the retrofit route 
for existing aircraft, I think it is important for us to send a message 
and to exercise our authority under the Constitution to compel that 
sale.
  There is a bigger point I would like to make as well. America's 
credibility in East Asia and beyond is at risk by the administration's 
decision yesterday. The President spoke at the United Nations earlier 
this week and addressed many priorities of U.S. foreign policy. I am 
not going to respond to each one of them because it was a 40-minute 
speech, but my point is, the success of U.S. foreign policy in every 
region of the world depends on the credibility of the U.S. Government--
whether we stand by our friends and whether we keep our commitments or 
whether we will abandon our support for other democracies like Taiwan. 
The answer to that question is of enormous interest not only to the 
people of Taiwan, to whom we have pledged in this 1979 law, the Taiwan 
Relations Act that I mentioned earlier, but also to the people of 
Israel, to the people of Eastern Europe, to the people of Japan and 
South Korea, and to the fledgling democracies now in Iraq and the 
people of Afghanistan, to people who are suffering from oppressive 
regimes all across the world who want the same basic freedoms we do and 
who share our values in self-government.
  What kind of message does it send from America to these friends of 
freedom? What kind of message does the Senate send by denying our ally 
Taiwan the purchase of military exports that they need and that they 
requested? And what message can the U.S. Senate send to reassure our 
allies in Taiwan as well as people watching everywhere around the world 
with our credibility on the line?
  I want to reiterate that this is a bipartisan matter. This is not a 
partisan issue at all. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported 
the Mutual Defense Treaty signed by President Eisenhower in 1954, and 
the Taiwan Relations Act was supported with bipartisan support and 
signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, and it remains the law of the 
land. That states specifically that the United States will provide to 
Taiwan the defense articles necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain 
sufficient self-defense capabilities in furtherance of maintaining 
peace and stability in the Western Pacific region.
  We know the U.S. military has been stressed by repeated deployments 
in Afghanistan and Iraq and commitments around the world. So why in the 
world wouldn't we want to improve the capacity of the Taiwanese 
Government to defend itself and reduce any potential burden on the 
United States in the process?
  I want to remind my colleagues what sufficient defense capabilities 
means. This is part of a memorandum from President Ronald Reagan in 
1982, and I think it is worth reading.

       It is essential that the quantity and quality of the arms 
     provided Taiwan be conditioned entirely on the threat posed 
     by the PRC [People's Republic of China]. Both in quantitative 
     and qualitative terms, Taiwan's defense capability relative 
     to that of the PRC will be maintained.

  That was the understanding of Congress, that was President Reagan's 
understanding, and that was our explanation to the Chinese Government 
to reassure them about the purpose for these military sales--to provide 
a defensive capability, not an offensive capability but a defensive 
capability.
  Why is Taiwan asking for these aircraft? Well, as I indicated 
earlier, Taiwan's air defense capabilities are nearly obsolete, while 
China's military capabilities are growing at an alarming rate. But air 
defense is not just a game of numbers; it is about the quality of the 
aircraft as well.
  So what about the quality of Taiwan's existing forces? Well, 
according to the Defense Intelligence Agency in an unclassified report 
last year, many of Taiwan's fighter aircraft are close to or beyond 
service life and many require extensive maintenance support.
  So China's capabilities are clearly newer, and they are growing and 
focus clearly on intimidating Taiwan and, yes, even the United States.
  China's official press agency reported in March that the People's 
Republic of China will increase its military budget this year by more 
than 12 percent. That is on top of an increase last year of 7.5 
percent. But the Pentagon estimates that China is not being transparent 
with regard to its military spending. In fact, China's official and 
public budget of $90 billion is far less than the $150 billion that 
they actually spent.
  So whom does China intend to intimidate by this growing military 
power? Here is what the Pentagon had to say in its 2011 report to 
Congress called ``Military and Security Developments Involving the 
People's Republic of China.'' The Defense Department observed that 
China continued modernizing its military in 2010, with a focus on 
Taiwan contingencies. The Pentagon also noted that China's Air Force 
will remain primarily focused on

[[Page S5856]]

``building the capabilities required to pose a credible military threat 
to Taiwan and U.S. forces in the East Asia.''
  Some say we shouldn't look at our policy with Taiwan in a vacuum, and 
I agree with that. We should look at it in the larger context, both of 
the region and our strategic relationship with China. We know many of 
China's neighbors in that region are concerned about the military 
buildup and the increasingly bellicose rhetoric from the government.
  Last year, China claimed the South China Sea as a core interest, 
which unsettled Vietnam and the Philippines and Indonesia and other 
nations in the region. China has renewed its longrunning border dispute 
with India, and, frankly, it continues to be an enabler, as we know, of 
the nuclear threat in North Korea. We know Pakistan's Defense Minister 
publicly discussed the possibility of China building a naval base in 
Pakistan, which is already home to a new strategically important port 
at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman.

  So it is important to look at the impact of China's growing military 
strength and its bellicose rhetoric on the whole region because, 
frankly, the disparity I pointed out earlier between the capability of 
the People's Republic of China when it comes to air power and that of 
Taiwan is a destabilizing influence in the region. Why in the world 
would we want to create a destabilizing condition in that region as 
opposed to a stable one that is in our best interests and that is in 
the best interests of our allies?
  We can tell that the Communist Chinese Government is trying to 
intimidate the United States from living up to its responsibilities. 
Last week, China's top official newspaper used a lot of unnecessary 
language on the subject of the arms sales to Taiwan. They called those 
of us on Capitol Hill who are supporting this ``madmen,'' and said we 
were ``playing with fire'' and said there would be a ``disastrous 
price'' if we continued to support our allies in Taiwan. They would 
like nothing better than for us to turn our backs on our allies in 
Taiwan, just like other bullies around the world would love for America 
to retreat and to pull back in our support for self-governing peoples 
everywhere.
  I do not think we want to send the message--I know I do not want to 
send the message--that the United States will give in to this kind of 
intimidation. We should pass this legislation to send a clear message 
to China and other nations around the world who are beating their 
chests and growing in military strength and posing destabilizing risks 
that the real madmen are those who think America will abandon our 
friends and allies and our principles and our long-range and 
longstanding strategic interests in the stability of East Asia.
  As I indicated earlier, there are a lot of people watching what we 
do. It would greatly reassure our allies and partners around the world 
if we acted in a responsible way consistent with our legal obligation 
under the Taiwan Relations Act, which apparently the administration has 
declined to do.
  Many of my colleagues remember what President Clinton did in 1996. He 
deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups during the Taiwan Strait 
crisis then. That crisis developed when China tried to intimidate 
Taiwan, once again, on the eve of its first free Presidential election 
by conducting this series of so-called military exercises that included 
the firing of missiles just a few miles north of Taiwan.
  President Clinton responded by ordering the largest U.S. military 
force since the Vietnam war to deploy to the region, including carrier 
battle groups led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Independence. America's 
show of resolve and strength did not escalate that crisis, it diffused 
it--exactly what would happen here if we made this sale to Taiwan. It 
would send, as that did then, a welcome signal to the region.
  According to an article in the current issue of Washington Quarterly, 
following that crisis the region's confidence in the United States 
soared. Japan, Singapore, the Philippines, and other nations in the 
region all bolstered their security ties with the United States.
  Isn't that what we want? If America is going to be an undependable 
ally, there is no real benefit to people aligning their interests with 
ours and joining with us in these sorts of strategic security ties.
  The Taiwan Strait crisis was one of the real foreign policy successes 
of the Clinton administration, but the authors of that same article 
conclude that ``forsaking Taiwan now will likely have the opposite 
effect.''
  I want to return to a subject I brought up earlier. In addition to 
our other interests, which are many, and having us seen as being a 
dependable ally to our friends and keeping our commitments, this bill 
deserves the support of the Senate for other reasons as well. In 
addition to our longstanding bipartisan consensus on Taiwan, the 
growing gap in military capabilities between Taiwan and China, China's 
aggressive behavior toward its neighbors and the United States' 
credibility with our allies and free people everywhere, this is a jobs 
bill.
  This is a policy that creates jobs. If we sell this American-made 
product to our friends and allies who are willing to pay for it--and it 
will not cost one dime in taxpayer dollars--it creates jobs at home. 
This chart shows, in yellow, all of the States where jobs would be 
created and sustained as a result of these sales. This map shows every 
State in which direct and indirect employment from this export sale of 
F-16s to Taiwan is projected to be at least 60 person-years of 
employment, which is the equivalent of 10 American workers employed 
full time for 6 years.
  As you can see from this map, 32 States will have that level of job 
creation or more, making this F-16 sale to Taiwan a coast-to-coast job 
engine. In fact, according to a report by the Perryman Group, the 
requested sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan ``would generate some $8.7 billion 
in output.'' That is something the American economy could use now? 
Furthermore, it would directly support more than 23,000 jobs. That is 
surely something we need now.
  As I said, these jobs don't cost the American taxpayer a dime. Apart 
from the paperwork and processing necessary to approve the deal, these 
are private sector jobs, and it is exactly the private sector that we 
need to take off again.
  The one thing the Federal Government, the U.S. Government, needs to 
do perhaps more than anything else is simply get out of the way and let 
these Americans continue to stay on the job--and collect, in addition, 
an estimated $768 million in Federal tax revenue. That is something 
else we could use, more tax revenue coming in from more employed 
workers so we can close the gap in our $1.5 trillion annual deficit and 
begin to work our way toward reducing the debt, which is more than $14 
trillion.
  I thank, on a bipartisan basis, the Senators who have supported this 
legislation. I note that of the 47 signatories on the letters that have 
been made part of the record supporting this sale, 13 are from our 
Democratic friends across the aisle. This is truly a bipartisan effort.
  For all the reasons I have mentioned, I hope we will vote yes and 
pass this important amendment to this bill.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). Who yields time? The 
senior Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the book of Ecclesiastes contains wisdom 
that should guide us today, and I am paraphrasing. This is not exactly 
what the Scriptures say: For everything there is a season and a time 
for every matter under the Sun. Or, to state it more colloquially, 
there is a time and place for everything. Some times are better than 
others; some places are better than others.
  My colleague from Texas offered an amendment that required the 
President to sell F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan. I, respectfully, note 
the debate on this trade adjustment assistance bill is not the 
appropriate time, season, or place to raise this issue. This is a trade 
bill. This is not about sales of F-16s to Taiwan or to any country. It 
is a wholly different subject. It has nothing to do with what we are 
trying to debate today and focus our attention on so we can get this 
legislation passed.
  The adoption of an amendment on an unrelated and controversial issue 
of Taiwanese arms sales would derail the carefully negotiated 
bipartisan agreement on trade assistance. If this

[[Page S5857]]

amendment would pass of itself, irrespective of the merits, it would 
derail passage of trade adjustment assistance because it would be an 
amendment. So it would go over to the other body, they would have to 
work with it, maybe concur with it, include maybe other amendments, and 
it would, perhaps, come over here again.
  We have an agreement between the House and Senate and White House 
where we pass both trade adjustment assistance and then we can pass the 
free-trade agreements and most everybody wins. This amendment 
ultimately would imperil passage of the three pending trade agreements 
with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
  I know my good friend--I suspect; that would be presumptuous of me--
but I suspect my good friend from Texas is very much in favor of those 
three trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. I know a 
number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle also support the 
sale of F-16s to Taiwan.
  But to paraphrase Ecclesiastes, this is an issue that should be 
debated at another time. Not here. At another time.
  Just 9 days ago, Senator Cornyn introduced legislation on the F-16 
issue that tracks the substantive language of this amendment. That 
amendment has been referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
where it belongs. That is, in fact, the right way to deal with this 
issue, through consideration by the committee of jurisdiction.
  In the spirit of Ecclesiastes, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to 
save this issue for another day to vigorously discuss and debate it, to 
look at the merits, to see what makes sense and does not make sense. 
But that is for another day. We should vote against the amendment at 
this time. It could be a very meritorious issue, I am not passing 
judgment on it, but this is not the time and place. If it were adopted, 
it would severely jeopardize the passage of trade adjustment assistance 
and also the free-trade agreements which are supported by many Members 
of this body.


                           Amendment No. 650

  I would like to speak on another matter, and that is the Thune 
amendment. The Thune amendment looks backwards to the past when we 
should be looking forward to the future. I understand Senator Thune 
will offer his amendment very soon today.
  The bill before the Senate restores urgently needed job training for 
American workers impacted by trade. It also clears the path for 
Congress to approve our job creating trade agreements with Colombia, 
Panama, and South Korea. The bill reflects the understanding among the 
Senate, the House and the President, about how to move the trade agenda 
forward. But the Thune amendment looks, not forward, it looks 
backwards. It calls for a new government report on the harm from 
delaying the pending free-trade agreements. No one disputes the harm; 
that is not the issue. The issue is how quickly can we adopt them.
  Harm; that is, delay, is well documented, and there is blame to go 
all around, so we should not waste scarce resources to score political 
points; that is, it is not worth time trying to point the finger of 
blame anywhere. Rather, it makes much more sense to get the job done; 
that is, pass the free-trade agreements. And passage of the trade 
adjustment assistance will mean passage of the free-trade agreements. 
So we should instead use our resources to identify foreign trade 
barriers that impede U.S. exports. We should help small businesses 
succeed in global markets, and we should monitor whether our trade 
partners are abiding by the rules.
  So let's look forward, not to the past. Let's avoid further delay of 
our trade agreements. Let's defeat this amendment and send to the House 
a clean bill on trade adjustment assistance.


                           Amendment No. 651

  Speaking on another amendment--first was the Cornyn amendment, second 
was the Thune amendment, and now is the Rubio amendment, which will be 
voted upon soon--I urge my colleagues to vote against Senator Rubio's 
amendment. It would limit trade adjustment benefits only to workers who 
lose their jobs as a result of imports from a country with which the 
United States has a free-trade agreement. The United States has only 
about 17 free-trade agreement partners. We do not limit our trade just 
to those countries. There is a lot of trade around the world. The 
United States trades with virtually every country in the world, not 
just to countries with which we have free-trade agreements. In fact, we 
export to nearly 200 countries around the world. Remember, we have only 
17 free-trade agreements, but we export to nearly 200 countries around 
the world.
  Under this amendment, the Rubio amendment, workers who lose their 
jobs as a result of trade with 8 of our top 10 trade partners, 
including China and Japan, would not receive TAA benefits. Why? Because 
there is no free-trade agreement with those countries. It makes no 
sense whatsoever. In fact, the Rubio amendment would say to workers 
around the country, if you lose your job due to trade with China, you 
are out of luck. If you lose your job due to trade with India, you are 
out of luck. Only if you lose your job with a country with which we 
have a free-trade agreement do you get assistance.
  The Rubio amendment would significantly, therefore, limit the number 
of workers who get help under trade adjustment assistance. Why would we 
want to do that? Why would we want to do that at a time when 14 million 
Americans are looking for work? Trade adjustment assistance helps 
Americans get the important retraining they need to find good-paying 
jobs, and now is not the time to shut out those Americans.
  So for these reasons--and also because passage of the Rubio amendment 
would jeopardize passage of trade adjustment assistance and jeopardize 
the passage of free-trade agreements--I urge my colleagues to oppose 
that amendment as well.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 651 to Amendment No. 633

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I call up Rubio amendment No. 651 and ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 651 to amendment No. 633.

  Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To limit eligibility for trade adjustment assistance to 
 workers who are laid off because of an increase in imports from, or a 
 shift in production to, a country with which the United States has a 
                    free trade agreement in effect)

       On page 5 of the amendment, between lines 6 and 7, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 212. REQUIREMENT THAT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR TRADE 
                   ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE WORKERS BE LAID OFF 
                   BECAUSE OF IMPORTS FROM, OR A SHIFT IN 
                   PRODUCTION TO, A COUNTRY WITH WHICH THE UNITED 
                   STATES HAS A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IN EFFECT.

       Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2272), as 
     amended by section 211 of this Act, is further amended by 
     striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--A group of workers shall be certified by 
     the Secretary as eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
     under this chapter pursuant to a petition filed under section 
     221 if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in 
     such workers' firm have become totally or partially 
     separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially 
     separated; and
       ``(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm 
     have decreased absolutely;
       ``(ii)(I) imports from a country with which the United 
     States has a free trade agreement in effect of articles or 
     services like or directly competitive with articles produced 
     or services supplied by such firm have increased;
       ``(II) imports from such a country of articles like or 
     directly competitive with articles--
       ``(aa) into which one or more component parts produced by 
     such firm are directly incorporated, or
       ``(bb) which are produced directly using services supplied 
     by such firm,


[[Page S5858]]


     have increased; or
       ``(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or 
     more component parts produced in such a country that are like 
     or directly competitive with imports of articles 
     incorporating one or more component parts produced by such 
     firm have increased; and
       ``(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) 
     contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat 
     of separation and to the decline in the sales or production 
     of such firm; or
       ``(B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by such workers' firm to 
     a country with which the United States has a free trade 
     agreement in effect in the production of articles or the 
     supply of services like or directly competitive with articles 
     which are produced or services which are supplied by such 
     firm; or
       ``(II) such workers' firm has acquired from such a country 
     articles or services that are like or directly competitive 
     with articles which are produced or services which are 
     supplied by such firm; and
       ``(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the 
     acquisition of articles or services described in clause 
     (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation 
     or threat of separation.''.

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, we have had this important conversation 
this week about trade policy in the United States, and it is an 
important one. Clearly, one of the great things that will help us grow 
our economy in the years to come is further free trade. As we have 
these pending free-trade agreements--and most everyone around here I 
have run into says they are in favor of, including the President, the 
one with South Korea, the one with Panama, the one with Colombia--there 
has been a prerequisite put in place by those in charge in the Chamber, 
and that is we deal with the TAA issues. That is why we are on the 
issue today, which clearly has been linked, free-trade agreement and 
the TAA law.
  I wish to talk a little bit about the free-trade agreements because 
we are continuing to wait for them to be sent down to us. These 
agreements would increase U.S. exports by billions of dollars and 
create jobs here in the United States. For example, there are exports 
of about $12 billion annually, adding about $14 billion to the U.S. 
economy. These are real numbers.
  The South Korea agreement alone, for example, is estimated to add as 
many as 70,000 American jobs. These benefits are not realized because 
the President has not submitted these for approval to this body or to 
the Congress. The debate we are having is not a new one. The trade 
adjustment assistance, or TAA, has been a policy of the United States, 
for better or worse, since the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
  Interestingly, this policy was first proposed by Senator John F. 
Kennedy when he aptly titled it the Trade Adjustment Act. The initial 
goal was to respond to perceived effects of trade policy. In essence, 
you enter into a trade policy, such as a free-trade agreement with 
another country, and American workers may lose their job in the short 
term, but you create a fund to help them transition to what you hope 
will be the new jobs created by the free-trade agreement. As you create 
this new relationship with new countries and new economies, the effect 
of it is while some jobs may be lost, those jobs are replaced with new 
opportunities and new jobs. In the process of that transition, between 
the job you once had and the job you hope to have in the future as a 
product of free trade, you create this fund to help workers adjust from 
point A to point B. That is the purpose of it. That is why it has been 
included in things such as the Trade Act of 1974. It was ushered in 
with the North American Free Trade Agreement under President Clinton. 
It was also included in the Trade Act of 2002, the last authorization 
of the trade promotion authority so vital to promoting the free-trade 
policies in the United States.
  From its inception, TAA has been linked to free trade. Basically the 
understanding is when you enter into free-trade agreements with another 
country, there are short-term disruptions and you need a fund available 
to help workers transition during the disruption. Very simply put, you 
have a job, maybe it goes overseas in the free-trade agreement, but a 
new job is created in America as a result of that agreement and we are 
going to help you transition through this fund.
  That was the purpose of it until 2009 when under the stimulus bill 
that has been changed and has been vastly expanded. Now in order to 
qualify for it, all you need to prove is that somehow your job or the 
company you work for has moved operations potentially overseas. That is 
a big problem in America. It is a big problem in Florida.
  If you talk to people, they will tell you, we are losing our jobs. 
Other countries are taking our jobs. Jobs are going overseas. There are 
a lot of reasons for that. The first is unfair trade practices. This 
body should address that, beginning with China and other nations that 
unfairly deal with the United States, whether it is manipulation of 
their currency, whether it is dumping, among other things they do that 
are unfair, not to mention some of these nations have no environmental 
regulations, no protections for their workers or wages. There are 
incredible amounts of headwinds we face with regard to that. That 
should be dealt with. It should be dealt with seriously through public 
policy, and it is something we should look at. That is not a temporary 
issue. That is permanent. That is ingrained and entrenched. Unless we 
deal with the issues involved in that and those unfair trade practices, 
no temporary measure like TAA is going to help us deal with that. We 
have to deal with that on a permanent basis. That was not the purpose 
of the TAA.
  The second thing we need to deal with is some of the impediments we 
are creating ourselves. That is why I am encouraged when I hear 
bipartisan talk of tax reform, things that will make it easier for 
people to build in the United States and open businesses here. Also, 
regulatory reform. Let there be no doubt that while there are 
significant currency manipulation problems and significant trade 
impediments in terms of unfair trade practices by other countries, some 
of the wounds are self-inflicted through a regulatory and a Tax Code 
that makes it difficult for people to do things and do business in the 
United States.
  Again, I am encouraged when I hear bipartisan talk about regulatory 
reform and tax reform. These are the kinds of things that can deal 
permanently with a permanent and entrenched problem. That is not the 
purpose of TAA. Today we stand here considering this as a gateway issue 
because we have been told we have to pass this bill before we can get 
to the free-trade agreements, and so clearly it links the two. If we 
are going to link the two, we have to make it very clear that this sort 
of existence was created for the define purpose and the specific 
purpose of helping people to transition because of a disruption created 
in their job status as a result of a free-trade agreement.
  This is a pretty simple amendment. It says this assistance is only 
available to those workers who lose their jobs to a country we have a 
free-trade agreement with because this is designed to deal with the 
unintended consequences and the temporary disruptions that might be 
created by a free-trade agreement with another country. So that is what 
the amendment does, and I am hoping to have the support of as many of 
my colleagues as possible in putting this program back into its 
historical purpose.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. I wanted to speak generally about the matter that is 
before the Senate on trade adjustment assistance. I especially 
appreciate the work that has been done by the Presiding Officer from 
Ohio over many years, including his time in the House of 
Representatives and here in the Senate as well.
  I want to make two comments, one about one of the amendments we will 
consider today by the Senator from Florida, but also to speak more 
broadly about this legislation. When the Senate is considering 
legislation, we do not every day do a good job of trying to put 
ourselves in the position of other people, workers and people who are 
suffering through a tough economy. When the Senate is doing its best 
work, part of the way we get there is by trying to figure out and 
understand, as best we can, what it is like to lose a job or suffer 
from--we are dealing with natural disasters and natural disaster 
assistance as well--but try to understand the people we represent. I 
know we cannot do that with full knowledge because many of us have 
never had to suffer through that kind of experience. I think it is 
important we try our best to

[[Page S5859]]

understand what this legislation is all about.
  This is legislation which basically says the American people, through 
our government, are going to do everything possible to help folks when 
they lose a job, and especially when they lose a job as a result of 
unfair foreign competition. I have seen it in Pennsylvania for decades. 
We have been getting hammered because we have not often stood up for 
our own workers. We have not fought battles to help them get through 
the horror of job loss because of unfair foreign competition. All we 
are saying is we are going to try to help them to cross that bridge 
from losing that job in many cases they had for years or decades. So, 
No. 1, we are going to try to help them in that crisis.
  No. 2, we are going to do everything we can to retrain them. They 
have to go to the training. This is not something we can hand to them. 
They have to work at the training and prepare themselves. I think most 
Americans believe when someone is in crisis, you try to help them, but 
you also want to make sure they can help themselves through training 
and retraining.
  I think we should consider here what it would be like for one of us. 
Each of us has a salary and has health care here in the Senate and we 
have a pension plan, so we are doing pretty well. Imagine what it is 
like, though, to work in a plant for decades doing the same work, and 
you do that work with pride and dignity; you take care of your family; 
you work in a job that has a sustaining wage. You do that for decades, 
the same job virtually every day, every year, but you have two things: 
You have the ability to provide for your family and you have some 
dignity. Imagine when a hurricane, or unfair foreign competition, which 
our government has not done enough to fight against, sweeps through 
your factory and wipes you out before you can even think about it. It 
wipes out every job, or a lot of jobs. Sometimes physically it lifts 
the equipment off the floor and moves it to another country. That is 
what we are talking about here. So someone who has been doing this work 
for decades, in some cases, and all of a sudden they are not only 
without a job--that is bad enough--but they are faced with the prospect 
of not being able to transition because they have been in the same job 
and they have not had access to education or training that would allow 
them to transition. It would be nice if we had an economy everyone 
could transition, that you could get an educational level--and this is 
what it should be if we are doing the right thing providing this--that 
we have an educational level and an exposure to an immersion in skills 
and other advantages that will allow you to absorb that shock, allow 
you to pivot when someone with unfair trade wipes out your job. That is 
the ideal. That is what we hope we can develop in our education, our 
training system, training strategies. That is why workforce development 
is so important, so people have the broadbased skill level and they can 
absorb those shocks. But a lot of people can't.
  All we are saying with trade adjustment assistance is we are going to 
help you with what we hope will be a short-term crisis for you and your 
family, and we are going to try to provide the training opportunities.
  We are going to try to provide training opportunities so people 
cannot just get a new job but maybe can get a job because they have 
developed a skill that will allow them to have the same income for 
their families that they are used to but at least--at least--provide 
some short-term help for folks, and then give them skills for the long 
term. That is what this is all about. This is not complicated. It is 
all about that.
  I understand we have a lot of folks here who have concerns about the 
legislation. They have concerns about one or the other aspect of it. 
But I hope we would not limit our horizons to helping all the folks who 
are adversely impacted.
  For example, if we look at one of the provisions--this is why I want 
to get to the amendment itself that we are talking about. Here is what 
it does: The underlying amendment covers workers whose firms shift 
production to any country--any country--including China or India, not 
just countries with which the United States has entered into a free-
trade agreement.
  Look, I do not think we should be treating workers we are trying to 
help under trade adjustment assistance any differently if they do not 
fall within that category of only the 17 countries with which we have 
free-trade agreements. So I think we should make sure that--of course, 
this is one of the changes the underlying amendment will validate, that 
we are trying to help anyone in that category who has been so adversely 
affected. So I do not think we should limit it to just 17 countries. We 
trade with countries all over the world, and we should do our best 
within the limits of this legislation to make sure it applies to a lot 
more than 17 countries, and that is the effect of the underlying 
amendment.
  The Rubio amendment would only cover workers who lose their jobs due 
to trade with those 17 countries with which we have a trade agreement. 
In some ways--this is my own opinion on it--it puts the burden on the 
workers to somehow prove they are in the right category when the burden 
should be on us to make sure we are doing everything possible to help 
them--again, short-term help for the crisis, long-term help by way of 
skill development.
  We have 14 million people in the country out of work; 14.4 million is 
what I saw at last count. Of the 14.4 million people, almost 4.5 
million have been out of work for 1 year or more. Just imagine that. 
That is bigger than the population of a number of States. In 
Pennsylvania we have 12.5 million people. If we can just consider more 
than one-third of a State's population being out of work for more than 
1 year.
  So we have a lot of people who are out of work a long time, and they 
are especially disadvantaged if they happen to work in those industries 
that are particularly sensitive to or adversely impacted by trade with 
countries that are not playing by the rules.
  We are going to have a discussion today, as well, about the 
introduction of currency legislation as it relates to China, where a 
number of us, including the Presiding Officer--and it is a bipartisan 
bill--think we have to get much tougher as it relates to Chinese 
currency policy. If China cheats, that costs jobs. So we should be very 
tough in those instances, and I think we can be, and do it in a 
bipartisan way.
  But I would hope, with a program that works, we would be doing 
everything possible to keep it expanded for people affected by 
countries beyond just those 17. I know the Senator from Florida is 
concerned about those workers. I just hope we can keep the provisions 
in place to protect all our workers as best we can and not just start 
to limit it to 17 countries at a time when we need help for folks--
short term with the crisis but longer term with skill development so 
they can transition and start a new worklife, even if they are 45 or 50 
or 55 years old. A lot of these folks are in that age category.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of 
Senator Rubio's amendment and thank him for helping us to focus on the 
original intent of trade adjustment assistance.
  Obviously, we want to help folks who are unemployed or displaced 
because of trade. But we have to realize where we are with our country 
right now. We are using borrowed money and sometimes printed money in 
order to help people. So we have a responsibility to taxpayers and to 
some form of fiscal sanity, as well as to those who have lost their 
jobs. What Senator Rubio is trying to do is to restore those original, 
responsible boundaries of trade adjustment assistance to make sure this 
program is focused on those who are hurt by trade agreements.
  The discussion is somewhat odd in the first place in that for several 
years the President has been telling us these trade agreements are 
actually going to increase jobs in our country, expand exports--which I 
believe they will--but to use this as an excuse and to hold these trade 
bills hostage for several years in order to fund a program which 
duplicates many other programs--because we need to remember, those who 
are put out of work in our country today have not only regular 
unemployment benefits but they have been extended much beyond what we 
have done before, and there are dozens of State and Federal training 
programs now that duplicate each other. Unfortunately, many of them 
have been

[[Page S5860]]

found to be ineffective. But for us to lay another layer of duplication 
on top of that under the guise of showing compassion, I think we also 
have to make sure we are being responsible.
  So we want to help folks who are unemployed, but we do need to make 
sure we are being responsible to the taxpayers. As I said, the trade 
adjustment assistance was originally designed to help those who were 
put out of work. And, believe me, coming from a textile State such as 
South Carolina, trade with China and other countries has displaced a 
whole lot of textile workers. Retraining is very important. The new 
jobs that moved in required more technical capabilities. But what we 
have found, as we have seen how our good intentions have hit the ground 
in South Carolina and around the country, is that even our own Office 
of Management and Budget rated TAA as ineffective.
  The program costs taxpayers $1.3 billion in just this year, in 2011, 
and we are finding that what it was intended to do it is not doing. It 
is not well managed. It is not helping the people it is supposed to 
help. Since its inception, the program has gone from a focus on those 
who lose their jobs because of trade to all kinds of institutions, 
training groups, and, frankly, fraud, duplication, and not helping the 
folks it is intended to help.
  If we want to know how far out of bounds the program has gone, we all 
know the story of Solyndra solar company that got over $\1/2\ billion 
from the American taxpayers and then went bankrupt and we lost our 
money. The workers now at Solyndra are applying for TAA benefits not 
because trade put them out of business, but, frankly, a coordinated 
effort of our government and Solyndra management have put these people 
out of work. But we can see, if they are now using a program called 
trade adjustment assistance to add to their unemployment benefits, the 
program is no longer within the bounds that it was intended.
  If we are going to tell the taxpayers this program is intended for 
one thing, we need to make sure it is. What we are talking about now 
are trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. No one has 
come and told us these agreements are going to cost American jobs. Yet 
we have to pass more spending programs and add on to a program that has 
been proved ineffective in order to add jobs in America. That is not 
good policy. I do not think it is good politics.
  I am thankful Senator Rubio is taking the leadership to shine a 
spotlight on the need to help people while at the same time being 
responsible to taxpayers. We do not need to be funding additional 
unemployment for every company that goes out of business and was not 
properly managed. If we keep the program focused, it will help the 
people we need to help while, again, being responsible for hard-working 
Americans who are paying the taxes.
  I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this amendment. Federal 
programs that continue to expand and expand and expand, they become 
less and less effective; they cost more and more money. If we are going 
to continue this program, let's do it responsibly.
  Mr. President, I yield back and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 634

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly again on my 
amendment as to the sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan and respond to the 
comments of the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Baucus, who said this was neither the right bill nor the right 
time. I understand every manager of a bill wants a clean bill; in other 
words, they do not want amendments. They would like to bring it here 
and have the Senate pass it without any changes whatsoever. But that is 
not the way our system works.
  Indeed, it is actually urgent we get this matter settled in a 
positive way because, as I mentioned earlier, there are 23,000 jobs in 
America that depend on this sale--many of them in the production line 
in Texas--but there are jobs all over the United States that depend on 
this.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a document titled ``Projected Nationwide Employment Impact of 
Production of 66 F-16C/Ds for Taiwan.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


 PROJECTED NATIONWIDE EMPLOYMENT IMPACT OF PRODUCTION OF 66 F-16C/DS FOR
                                 TAIWAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          State                             Job--Years*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama (AL)............................................           168.6
Alaska (AK).............................................               0
Arizona (AZ)............................................           745.8
Arkansas (AR)...........................................           261.9
California (CA).........................................        11,399.8
Colorado (CO)...........................................            37.1
Connecticut (CT)........................................         5,876.1
Delaware (DE)...........................................             5.9
Florida (FL)............................................         1,923.5
Georgia (GA)............................................           537.4
Hawaii (HI).............................................               0
Idaho (ID)..............................................             1.8
Illinois (IL)...........................................           777.7
Indiana (IN)............................................           463.4
Iowa (IA)...............................................           199.6
Kansas (KS).............................................            75.9
Kentucky (KY)...........................................             4.8
Louisiana (LA)..........................................             0.9
Maine (ME)..............................................           484.5
Maryland (MD)...........................................         2,687.3
Massachusetts (MA)......................................           349.2
Michigan (MI)...........................................           879.9
Minnesota (MN)..........................................           179.6
Mississippi (MS)........................................            16.1
Missouri (MO)...........................................           197.9
Montana (MT)............................................            23.9
Nebraska (NE)...........................................               0
Nevada (NV).............................................               0
New Hampshire (NH)......................................           458.6
New Jersey (NJ).........................................           747.9
New Mexico (NM).........................................           482.8
New York (NY)...........................................           847.7
North Carolina (NC).....................................            27.2
North Dakota (ND).......................................               0
Ohio (OH)...............................................        10,577.0
Oklahoma (OK)...........................................            71.8
Oregon (OR).............................................           137.8
Pennsylvania (PA).......................................           266.4
Rhode Island (RI).......................................             1.1
South Carolina (SC).....................................            66.9
South Dakota (SD).......................................             0.0
Tennessee (TN)..........................................             1.5
Texas (TX)..............................................        35,944.8
Utah (UT)...............................................         2,602.5
Vermont (VT)............................................           170.6
Virginia (VA)...........................................           507.7
Washington (WA).........................................            62.9
West Virginia (WV)......................................               0
Wisconsin (WI)..........................................            78.9
Wyoming (WY)............................................             5.3
District of Columbia (DC)...............................            36.2
Rest of US (Spillover Effects)..........................         7,270.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total U.S...........................................        87,664.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Job-Year = 1 person employed for 1 year.
 
 Source: May 2011 report by The Perryman Group (private consulting
  firm), ``An Assessment of the Potential Impact of the Lockheed Martin
  F-16 Program on Business Activity in Affected States and Congressional
  Districts''

  Mr. CORNYN. This is a very interesting document because it breaks 
down on a nationwide basis where jobs would come from or be affected by 
a refusal to sell these F-16s. In California, for example, 11,399 job-
years.
  If you are wondering, like I was, what a job-year is, that is one 
person employed for 1 year. So that is pretty significant.
  In Connecticut, 5,876 job-years; in Ohio--I know the current occupant 
of the chair, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, will be interested 
to know that Ohio would see 10,577 job-years as a result of this sale.
  So as manufacturing is important in the State of Ohio, it is 
important in the State of Texas. Why would we not want to see these 
jobs created by this sale?
  Mr. President, I have another document which is a letter signed by 
181 Members of the House of Representatives to the President of the 
United States endorsing this sale. I ask unanimous consent it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 2011.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our concerns 
     about the military imbalance in the Taiwan Straight. In order 
     to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, we 
     believe it is critical for the United States to sell the 
     government of Taiwan all the F-16 C/D it requires. We 
     respectfully request that your administration move quickly to 
     announce its support for such a sale and submit the required 
     Congressional Notification for a sale as soon as possible.
       Successive reports issued by U.S. and Taiwanese defense 
     authorities outline the threat Taiwan continues to face, 
     including the continued military buildup by the People's 
     Republic of China. For example, Beijing has more than 1,400 
     missiles aimed at Taiwan and continues to add to this total. 
     China is forging ahead and deploying next generation military 
     technology. Military experts both in Taiwan and in the United 
     States have raised alarms that Taiwan is losing its 
     qualitative advantage in defensive arms that have long served 
     as a primary military deterrent.

[[Page S5861]]

       Due to impending changes within Taiwan's force structure, 
     we respectfully urge a timely resolution to the aircraft sale 
     issue. Within the next decade Taiwan will retire 70% of its 
     fighter force and without new fighter aircraft and upgrades 
     to its existing fleet of F-16s, Taiwan's situation could 
     become quite precarious.
       As you know, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (TRA) states 
     that it is U.S. policy ``to consider any effort to determine 
     the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means . . . of 
     grave concern to the United States.'' We remain deeply 
     concerned that delays in the decision on the sale of F-16s to 
     Taiwan and subsequently notifying Congress of their sale 
     could very well result in closure of the F-16 assembly line. 
     In addition to enhancing Taiwan's security, approval of the 
     sale would support thousands of American jobs--especially 
     well-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector.
       Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your 
     reply.
           Sincerely,
         Shelley Berkley, Phil Gingrey, M.D., Gerald E. Connolly, 
           Mario Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Howard L. 
           Berman, Donald A. Manzullo, Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, Dan 
           Burton, Gary L. Ackerman, Steve Chabot, Eliot L. Engel, 
           Elton Gallegly, Kay Granger, Connie Mack, Dana 
           Rohrabacher, Edward R. Royce, Sandy Adams, Robert E. 
           Andrews, Steve Austria.
         Howard P. Buck McKeon, Sam Johnson, Eddie Bernice 
           Johnson, Judy Chu, Frank R. Wolf, Tom Reed, Michael G. 
           Grimm, Ander Crenshaw, Rick Berg, Paul Tonko, Tim 
           Griffin, Charles B. Rangel, Robert J. Dold, Frank A. 
           LoBiondo, Sheila Jackson Lee, Ann Marie Buerkle, 
           Michele Bachmann, Spencer Bachus, Joe Barton, Dan 
           Benishek.
         Brian P. Bilbray, Gus M. Bilirakis, Rob Bishop, Sanford 
           D. Bishop, Jr., Timothy H. Bishop, Marsha Blackburn, Jo 
           Bonner, Dan Boren, Robert A. Brady, Michael C. Burgess, 
           M.D., Dave Camp, John Campbell, Francisco ``Quico'' 
           Canseco, Dennis A. Cardoza, Andre Carson, John R. 
           Carter, Donna M. Christensen, Yvette D. Clarke, Emanuel 
           Cleaver, Howard Coble.
         Mike Coffman, K. Michael Conaway, Joe Courtney, Chip 
           Cravaack, John Abney Culberson, Peter A. DeFazio, Rosa 
           L. DeLauro, Theodore E. Deutch, Jeff Duncan, John J. 
           Duncan, Jr., Renee L. Ellmers, John Fleming, J. Randy 
           Forbes, Virginia Foxx, Trent Franks, Marcia L. Fudge, 
           Cory Gardner, Scott Garrett, Charles A. Gonzalez, Gene 
           Green.
         Ralph M. Hall, Colleen W. Hanabusa, Richard L. Hanna, 
           Gregg Harper, Andy Harris, M.D., Vicky Hartzler, Alcee 
           L. Hastings, Nan. A.S. Hayworth, M.D., Joseph J. Heck, 
           Martin Heinrich, Brian Higgins, James A. Himes, Maurice 
           D. Hinchey, Tim Holden, Steve Israel, Darrell E. Issa, 
           Bill Johnson, Walter B. Jones, William R. Keating, 
           Steve King.
         Jack Kingston, Adam Kinzinger, Doug Lamborn, James 
           Lankford, John B. Larson, Robert E. Latta, Daniel 
           Lipinski, Zoe Lofgren, Billy Long, Blaine Luetkemeyer, 
           Cynthia M. Lummis, Daniel E. Lungren, Carolyn B. 
           Maloney, Kenny Marchant, Tom Marino, Michael T. McCaul, 
           Tom McClintock, Thaddeus G. McCotter, Patrick T. 
           McHenry, Mike McIntyre.
         Michael H. Michaud, James P. Moran, Christopher S. 
           Murphy, Tim Murphy, Sue Wilkins Myrick, Grace F. 
           Napolitano, Randy Neugebauer, Devin Nunes, Alan 
           Nunnelee, Pete Olson, William L. Owens, Steven M. 
           Palazzo, Steven R. Rothman, Jon Runyan, Tim Ryan, Linda 
           T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Adam B. Schiff, Jean 
           Schmidt, David Schweikert.
         Austin Scott, David Scott, James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Pete 
           Sessions, Heath Shuler, Michael K. Simpson, Albio 
           Sires, Steve Southerland II, Frank Pallone, Jr., Bill 
           Pascrell, Jr., Joseph R. Pitts, Ted Poe, Tom Price, 
           M.D., Mike Quigley, Denny Rehberg, Silvestre Reyes, 
           Laura Richardson, David Rivera, Bill Shuster, David P. 
           Roe, M.D.
         Mike Rogers, Peter J. Roskam, Todd Rokita, Dennis A. 
           Ross, Jackie Speier, Cliff Stearns, Steve Stivers, 
           Glenn Thompson, Mac Thornberry, Edolphus Towns, Michael 
           R. Turner, Joe Walsh, Lynn A. Westmoreland, Ed 
           Whitfield, Joe Wilson, Robert J. Wittman, Don Young, 
           Richard B. Nugent, Benjamin Quayle, Robert T. 
           Schilling, Robert B. Aderholt.

  Mr. CORNYN. I see the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma in the 
Chamber, and I will defer to him momentarily. But I want to just say we 
need to understand what would happen if this production line of F-16s 
was shut down. The people who work on that production line would have 
to be let go or reassigned, actually exacerbating the high unemployment 
that we know is intolerably high. Once the production line of a 
sophisticated aircraft like the F-16 is shut down, we cannot decide, 
well, next year or the year after we are going to start up again--
unless we are going to add tremendously to the cost. It makes it far 
less likely it will ever get made because of the costs and because of 
the sheer magnitude of the effort of trying to get this production line 
back together and all the people who were employed there back to work.
  So that is why, to respond to the distinguished chairman of the 
Finance Committee, the manager of the bill, it is so important in terms 
of the timeliness. I agree there is a time for everything, but the time 
for this is now.
  I will just say, finally, as I indicated earlier, this is a 
bipartisan measure, as demonstrated by the 47 Senators who signed 
letters to the President urging the sale; 13 Democrats, along with the 
remainder being Republicans.
  In the House, this letter I mentioned earlier which has been made 
part of the Record, there are 181 Members of the House--a bipartisan 
list--I actually think that if the manager of the bill, the chairman of 
the Finance Committee, would accept this amendment, it would enhance 
the votes for the very bill he wants to see passed out of the Senate, 
perhaps later today.
  In conclusion, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated for 
Senator Thune be reserved within the time allocated to the minority and 
that quorum calls be charged equally between the majority and minority 
bill time first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the short 
time I am asking for as in morning business not be taken from either 
side in this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me say, as far as the subject is 
concerned right now, I am very proud to have one of the first 
signatures on this effort. It is good for every reason the Senator from 
Texas mentioned. On top of that, we have allies we are dealing with. We 
have the employment situation. I know this is going to be successful. I 
appreciate all the effort that has gone forth.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                  Specialist Christopher David Horton

  Today, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to Army SPC Christopher 
David Horton from Owasso, OK. That is home of the Rams in case people 
did not know. Chris was born in Tulsa on October 1, 1984. He was 
deployed to Afghanistan with over 2,000 Oklahoma National Guard 
soldiers from the 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team. There were 
actually 3,000 initially in this deployment. Some of them actually went 
to Kuwait at the last minute.
  He was deployed to Afghanistan. This combat team, the 45th, has 
probably had more deployments than anyone else, although this was 
Chris's first deployment. His unit was attacked by enemy forces in 
Paktia Province on September 9, 2011. Chris and two of his fellow 
soldiers, SGT Bret Isenhower and PFC Tony Potter, died of injuries 
sustained from that firefight.
  He would have turned 27 next week, on October 1. Chris attended the 
Missouri Military Academy in Mexico, MO, and graduated in 2003. He 
excelled both militarily and academically during his 6 years at 
Missouri Military Academy. He was the 2nd platoon leader his senior 
year, captain of the rifle team, on the honor roll, earning him the 
Academic Fourragere Award.
  Chris lived a remarkable life, driven by service and excellence. He 
often spoke of his desire for America to excel. He was a business owner 
and a volunteer police officer. He was extremely patriotic and very 
passionate in his love for America and for its freedoms, knowing they 
have to be protected.
  Chris was an accomplished recreational shooter and a professional 
sponsored shooter through the U.S. Shooting Academy of Owasso, OK. Some 
of his marksmen awards include the Gus Hadwiger Award of 2009. He 
received first place in novice pistol in the Oklahoma National Guard, 
first place in novice pistol in the Governor's Twenty Match. This guy 
was very good. He excelled and was among the very best. That was 
something he enjoyed.
  But in addition to shooting--this is kind of interesting because 
things bond us together. I came so close to meeting him, but I never 
actually did. But one of the things we had in common is we

[[Page S5862]]

are both avid fishermen. He loved fishing. That is one of the things he 
enjoyed very much. Every opportunity he had, he would fish both ocean 
and freshwater.
  His younger brother Nick said:

       He was the best big brother I could ever have asked for. He 
     taught me how to drive a car and how to fish.

  That pretty much tells it all. Chris's mother Cherie Horton said:

       My son's passion his whole life was to be a part of the 
     military.

  He wanted to be part of the military.

       He loved his country, and he really wanted to serve his 
     country. He was absolutely made to be a solder.

  This is a mother speaking. Chris enlisted in the Oklahoma National 
Guard in 2008, was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 279th Infantry 
Regiment of the 45th Brigade of the Army National Guard.
  He attended basic training at Fort Benning, GA, became a sniper-
qualified infantryman, and to no one's surprise, graduated at the top 
of his class. Chris leaves behind his parents, Cherie and David Horton, 
his brother Nicholas, sister Tenley, and his wife Jane Horton. Chris 
met Jane while attending the Kings College in New York City. Jane said 
it was Chris's fiery passion and their mutual love for politics that 
brought them together.

       He was the most honorable man I'd ever met in my life. 
     That's why I snagged him and we were engaged within 2 months. 
     We were married very fast.

  She knew what she was out after. I know this is true because my staff 
and I got to know Chris through his wife Jane. She was an intern for 
me. She worked in my office, and we had these exchanges all the time. 
As could be expected, Jane took a personal interest in operations in 
Afghanistan. She worked with my legislative staff, responsible for 
military and veterans affairs.
  During her time in Washington, she coordinated a campaign that 
resulted in over 20 care packages being sent to the Oklahoma National 
Guard Infantry Combat Brigade. I can tell everyone this, having been 
over there at a time when a lot of these care packages come in, we 
know, as we go across this country in helicopters, a lot of these 
packages, even though the people at home do not know it, are dropped to 
kids on the ground who love what we are doing there.
  So I think Jane represents the best asset our military has at its 
disposal; that is, the military spouses. Her zeal and dedication are 
not uncommon attributes for military spouses who ``hold down the fort'' 
while their loved ones are deployed.
  I had looked forward to meeting Chris during my upcoming trip to 
Afghanistan another week from now. I had a meeting during the break, 
the recess, in Collinsville, OK, and Jane was there. We talked about 
how we were going to meet up with Chris in my upcoming trip to 
Afghanistan. I had looked forward to meeting him during that trip.
  While this personal conversation will not happen, I am committed to 
making Chris's desire that our Nation be led down the right path a 
reality. Chris lived a life of love for his family, friends, and 
country. He will be remembered for his commitment to and belief in the 
greatness of our Nation.
  Here are some of the comments posted online in honor of his life. I 
think it is kind of neat to read a lot of these. They come from 
assorted different people. Some are members of the family, some are 
not. Here is one of them:

       God's got a good warrior up there with him now.

  Another one:

       I want to thank the families of this wonderful young man 
     who was willing to give his life for our freedom. May no one 
     in America take this act lightly. Love and prayers to all of 
     the family and friends.

  Here is another:

       Christopher David Horton was the kind of young man who 
     would do anything for anybody.

  Another one:

       He is a hero--each and every servicemen/women are--they 
     protect our freedoms and without them we cannot. Thank you 
     Specialist Christopher Horton--may you rest in peace. Prayers 
     being said for your family.

  But here is my favorite one. It is actually by his brother Nick. He 
said:

       You will be missed more than anything brother, especially 
     on the range, you always gave me a run for my money. Till we 
     meet again in heaven!

  That is kind of great. This tough fight took place and took the life 
of Chris. But make no mistake, Chris's sacrifice made a difference and 
will continue to make a difference not just in Afghanistan but here in 
the United States.
  We are safe and our country is secure because of Chris and all the 
service men and women. We have to continue in our unwavering support 
for them. Although each servicemember we lose hurts, it is because of 
our connection to Jane that my staff and I are particularly affected by 
the loss of SPC Chris Horton.
  I extend the deepest gratitude and condolences to Chris's family. I 
will say something I will be criticized for--I always am. I have always 
been a Jesus guy. I find out, of course, that so is Chris. So when 
something such as this happens, even though we did not personally meet, 
we are brothers. So, in a case such as this, we do not say: Goodbye, 
Chris. We say: We will see you later.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 634

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, are we under a time limit to discuss 
the Cornyn amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Cornyn has 33 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to speak on the Cornyn amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, the Cornyn amendment is important 
because the President of the United States has refused to allow the 
sale of 66 F-16C/D model aircraft to Taiwan. Taiwan is trying to 
modernize its air force, and it is not an issue of our not selling to 
Taiwan. They have bought the A/B models, so they have 145 F-16s in the 
earlier model, the A/B. They are trying to get the next generation of 
them.
  This is a foreign policy issue, but also a domestic issue, because 
these are very important sales--the 66--for the F-16 line to be 
continued, and the hope is that this sale will go through. It is very 
important so that we can continue to make them for ourselves but also 
sell them to our allies. Most certainly, Taiwan is an ally and has used 
and likes the F-16. Taiwan has also used the French Mirage, but the 
French Mirage has a shortage of parts for Taiwan. They are trying to 
consolidate, with F-16s, American jobs and American fighters.
  Now they are running into the roadblock of the administration. Within 
the next decade, Taiwan will retire 70 percent of its fighter force 
structure. Its F-5s have reached the end of their utility. The Mirage 
fighters lack parts and life cycle support, and their indigenous 
defense fighters are being converted to trainers. Taiwan's existing 145 
F-16A/B fighters all require a midlife upgrade. With the F-16s already 
in the inventory, they are seeking to combine their whole fighter fleet 
with the single airframe, with the cost and operational benefits and 
the efficiencies that one fighter frame would give them.
  We are concerned that further delay of the decision to sell the F-16s 
to Taiwan could in fact close the production line. That is why 45 
members of the Senate have signed a letter to President Barack Obama, 
asking him to go forward with this sale of 66 F-16C/Ds to Taiwan.
  The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 directs Congress and the President 
to make decisions on arms sales to Taiwan based solely on the judgment 
of the needs of Taiwan. We believe that the Taiwanese pilots flying 
Taiwanese fighter aircraft manufactured in the United States represent 
the best first line of defense for our democratic ally, and do not pose 
any threat to China. There is no offense here. The Taiwan air force 
just patrols the Taiwan Strait to assure its safety and security.
  I rise in support of the amendment that has been offered. It is very 
important. Bipartisan support in Congress

[[Page S5863]]

for working with our ally, Taiwan, without any offense to China is 
important and we need to assure that it remains solid and firm.
  I hope our colleagues will help us with the amendment that will 
assure this sale goes through, that we keep the commitments we have 
made, and that we have the ability to sell to Taiwan; otherwise, they 
will surely look for other countries to buy from.
  That is not in our interest. Here we are trying to create jobs in 
America. It is certainly in our strategic interest to have our ally buy 
our product, so we can do the training and work with them and have a 
strengthening of not only our trade but our defense alliance. It just 
makes sense to go forward. It is not as if we don't sell to Taiwan. 
They have already bought 145 F-16s. They now want 66 more of the newer 
version.
  It is time for us to do what is right for our country, for jobs in 
our country, for our national defense, and for the keeping of our 
commitments and ties with our ally, Taiwan. I urge support for the 
Cornyn amendment. Since so many Democrats have signed a letter to the 
President, I hope that will translate into votes for the amendment so 
it will be clear that the bipartisan support in the Senate for the F-16 
sale to Taiwan is accomplished.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      U.S. Assistance to Pakistan

  Mr. KIRK. I rise to commend the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
under the leadership of Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Graham, on a 
decision we made yesterday as a full committee with regard to U.S. 
assistance to Pakistan.
  In short, what the Senate did was to remove nearly all the guarantees 
of assistance funding to the Pakistani Government, based on new 
information and statements made by senior U.S. Government officials on 
the Pakistani Government and its intelligence service's--called the 
ISI--support for an organization called the Haqqani network, one of the 
most dangerous terrorist organizations on Earth.
  We have learned from statements by our U.S. Ambassador in Kabul, U.S. 
Ambassador in Islamabad, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the Haqqani network has 
become the principle threat to the Afghan Government, to U.S. troops 
serving in Afghanistan, and to our NATO allies.
  We have seen the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and NATO Headquarters were 
attacked on September 12. At least 16 people were killed, including 5 
Afghan police officers and 11 civilians, in an attack organized and put 
together by the Haqqani network under the direct protection and support 
of Pakistan's Government itself. Just a few days earlier, at Combat 
Post Sayed Abad in Wardak Province, on September 10, over 77 U.S. 
soldiers and 17 Afghans were injured by a massive truck bomb likely put 
together by the Haqqani network, probably in Afghanistan, for an attack 
on Americans. This June 28, at the Hotel Intercontinental in Kabul, 12 
Afghans were killed and 8 were wounded during a nighttime attack, also 
likely sponsored by the Haqqani network. That same network attacked 
Kabul Bank on February 19, with over 40 people killed.
  The Haqqani network is a different branch of the Taliban. The Taliban 
largely does not have a safe sanctuary in Afghanistan or Pakistan. They 
have surrendered much of their operational control and initiative in 
eastern Afghanistan to the Haqqani network.
  The reason why the Haqqani network has become so powerful and so 
strong is because it is protected by the Government of Pakistan itself, 
a claimed ally of the United States that receives substantial 
assistance provided by this Congress.
  We have seen a very clear picture emerge from the administration 
directly connecting the Government of Afghanistan to the Haqqani 
network in support and assistance that has been involved in the death 
of American service men and women and our NATO and Afghan allies.
  This started out on September 13, when one of our most able Foreign 
Service Officers, a real hero of Foreign Service, our Ambassador in 
Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, highlighted Pakistan support for the Haqqani 
network and its role in attacks in Afghanistan.
  Four days later, our U.S. Ambassador, his counterpart in Islamabad, 
Cameron Munter, gave a very important and I think brave interview on 
Pakistani radio, highlighting the role of the Pakistani Government 
support for this terrorist organization and its attacks on U.S. service 
men and women in Afghanistan.
  The following day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during a 
meeting with Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khar, also highlighted the 
government support for this terrorist organization and its attacks on 
American citizens serving in uniform in Afghanistan.
  Finally, on September 20, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
Admiral Mullen, in a presentation before the Carnegie Endowment for 
Peace, also highlighted Pakistan's official government support for the 
ISI and the Haqqani network.
  In testimony today in the Senate Armed Services Committee, Admiral 
Mullen reiterated these claims, stating the ISI, Pakistan's Government, 
had provided explicit support for an attack on the U.S. Embassy in 
Kabul and NATO headquarters. The Haqqani network, supported by the 
Government of Pakistan, is also responsible for attacks on Afghan and 
Indian construction efforts in the Kabul-Gardez Road at Camp Chapman, 
an attack that killed seven CIA employees and enabled the kidnapping of 
American and British journalists.
  Within Pakistan, the Haqqani network serves as a trusted intermediary 
between the Pakistani intelligence service and terrorist organizations 
active also against the Indian democracy in Kashmir and throughout the 
subcontinent. These include Lashkar-e-Taiba and Tehrik-e Taliban 
Pakistan, organizations responsible for the 2008 and 2011 Mumbai 
attacks.
  Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, Admiral Mullen, General Allen, 
Ambassador Crocker, Ambassador Munter, and the Congress, Republicans 
and Democrats here in the Senate, now all agree that the Pakistani 
Government's complicity and longstanding history of support and 
protection for the Haqqani network is a major impediment of the U.S. 
goal of achieving safety and security in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The 
Pakistani Government should end its protection of the Haqqani network.
  The Haqqani network is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ISI, and is 
responsible for the death of American service men and women and 
civilians in Afghanistan. Both the United States and Pakistan would 
benefit from a strong and stable Afghanistan, but the ISI part of the 
Pakistani Government disagrees and supports terror. That is why it is 
important that the Senate made this decision to remove all but the 
counterterrorism accounts from Pakistan and to put in new language 
conditioning any extension of aid to Pakistan on cooperation against 
the Haqqani network.
  We will need to define what ``cooperation'' means, and I hope what it 
will mean is, No. 1, a substantive and continuous reduction in Haqqani 
op tempo against U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, showing that 
nearly all of the attacks have been eliminated within the calendar year 
and, on top of that, authority or action by the United States or NATO 
allies to hit Haqqani targets in the frontier autonomous tribal area, 
where they have been protected to date.
  Unless we can meet these two conditions, I believe the decision we 
have made to remove the floors and stop the guaranteed funding for 
Pakistan is a wise one. This is a rare moment in which the U.S. 
Ambassador in Kabul, the U.S. Ambassador in Islamabad, the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of 
State have all said that the Pakistanis directly support terror through 
the Haqqani network and it needs to stop. In these tough economic times 
where nearly all of the assistance under the legislation approved 
yesterday is in the overseas contingent operation account--which, 
remember, is all borrowed money to be provided to

[[Page S5864]]

Pakistan--it should be done only if their policy of supporting the 
Haqqani network ends.
  I am very glad the administration and now the Congress have spoken 
with a clear voice. I only hope we hold our nerve because, otherwise, 
if we go by past policies of having mere Pakistani promises and 
official statements be the cause for releasing U.S. aid, we will repeat 
the failures of the current policy. We need actual action. We need to 
understand that senior Pakistani officials--of their foreign ministry, 
of their intelligence service, and of their defense department--have 
directly lied to American officials. Only by action and cutting off the 
Haqqani network can we make sure that at least the U.S. taxpayer is not 
supporting this terrorism.
  I commend the action of the Foreign Operations Committee yesterday. I 
commend that it was a bipartisan action. Now I hope we stick to our 
guns and make sure we do not provide assistance to Pakistan unless they 
stop supporting this most dangerous now terrorist operation operating 
against our men and women in uniform serving in Afghanistan.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I first rise to speak for 30 
seconds on the trade adjustment assistance legislation and the 
amendment Senators Baucus and Casey and I have been working on, to make 
sure that trade adjustment is available to workers who have lost their 
jobs because of service or manufacturing and trade competition--only 
not real competition, because so often the deck is stacked far too much 
against American workers and American companies. Other amendments 
notwithstanding, I don't want to see this restricted to only those 
workers who have lost their jobs from unfair competition from countries 
we do not have trade agreements with. It sounds almost silly to have to 
say that. We need to keep this program focused on all workers who need 
some assistance, who need to be retrained. They lost their jobs through 
no doing of their own.
  It suggests the next issue, and that is something a bipartisan group 
of Senators has raised. Republican Senators, Senator Burr, Senator 
Graham, Senator Sessions, Senator Snowe, and Senator Collins, and 
Democratic Senators, Senator Schumer, Senator Stabenow, I am one of the 
five, Senator Hagan, and Senator Casey--each of us has pushed for 
legislation dealing with the problems of currency. The Chinese have 
clearly gamed the system.
  We spent all this time on the budget deficit. It is certainly worth 
addressing in a big way. But we spend so little time on the trade 
deficit, and the trade deficit cuts right into eliminating American 
jobs.
  Recent studies show that literally hundreds of thousands--some 2.8 
million jobs have been lost to China since 2001, in a decade. Two-
thirds of those were manufacturing jobs lost because of unfair trade 
practices, in part because of the way the Chinese game the system on 
currency. Our legislation says several things. One of the most 
important parts of this legislation is simply telling the U.S. 
Government, when it is doing an investigation on trade cases, it must 
consider currency manipulation by the Chinese.
  This will result, we know, in significant job growth in our country. 
It will mean more exports of U.S. products to China because it takes 
off that advantage they have. It will mean American companies making 
products here can compete with Chinese competition trying to sell into 
our market--again because it takes away the unfair subsidies the 
Chinese have had.
  You do not have to go very many places--in West Virginia, in 
Connecticut, in Ohio--to see how many cases there are of products sold 
in this country that used to be made here that are now being made in 
China. Currency is not the only reason but it is surely one of the 
reasons.
  I will close with this, a brief story about a company in southwest 
Ohio which manufactures paper. Until a decade and a half ago, the 
Chinese, the People's Republic of China, did not even have a coated 
paper industry. That is the sort of magazine paper, glossy paper we are 
all familiar with. The Chinese did not even have the kind of technology 
to make that paper for a decade and a half. Since then, they started 
their industry. They buy their wood pulp in Brazil, they ship it a long 
way to China, they mill it in China, they ship it back to the United 
States and they undercut American companies by underpricing American 
companies--southwest Ohio, in many cases, southern Ohio, American 
companies, and other places. They undercut them with price.

  They tell me when you make paper, only 10 percent of paper costs are 
labor costs. What that means is the Chinese are subsidizing in water 
and in credit, in land, in energy, and in labor, and in currency. We 
have been somewhat successful in fighting back and showing that the 
Chinese are cheating. But if we have that additional tool, they cannot 
game the currency system, and we will not see the kind of job loss, the 
hemorrhaging of jobs in West Virginia and Ohio and all over this 
country.
  American companies are some of the most efficient in the world. The 
workers are the best in the world. We will be able to compete on a much 
more level playing field. That is the importance of the legislation 
that 10 Senators, 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, are introducing. We 
spoke about it today. It is essential the Senate move forward on it.
  I thank Senator Blumenthal for yielding me these 5 minutes and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not in morning business.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I will proceed, then, as in morning business.
  First, I thank and commend the Senator from Ohio on his very 
important efforts on Chinese currency manipulation. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor with him on his legislation. I intend to introduce my own. He 
has been a very stalwart advocate and champion of U.S. trade interests 
and deserves the thanks and commendation of this body and the American 
people. I thank the Senator from Ohio.


                                 Israel

  I rise today to restate at this crucial juncture my unwavering 
commitment, as stated so eloquently by many in this body over the 
years, to the United States-Israel relationship and America's 
unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.
  I thank the President of the United States for his address to the 
United Nations, which very powerfully and courageously stated that 
commitment. The President's strong message shows again that our shared 
interests, as well as our friendship with Israel, are deep and 
enduring.
  As my colleagues know all too well, the Israelis and Palestinians 
must reach agreement through negotiations on the issues that divide 
them, not through the United Nations. Israel has repeatedly endorsed a 
two-state solution that will sustain it as a Jewish and democratic 
homeland. To be achievable, any lasting peace and any plan for peace 
must acknowledge the real security concerns that Israel faces day in 
and day out and has faced throughout its history.
  The President's powerful remarks at the United Nations were inspiring 
in a forum that has been repeatedly hijacked by dictators and despots 
for the purpose of delegitimizing Israel and fomenting anti-Semitism. 
The Palestinian Authority's bid for United Nations recognition is a 
distraction from the hard work, the really hard work needed to achieve 
peace and find an equitable solution.
  As the President said, ``The fact is peace is hard.'' To succeed, 
``peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together 
long after our speeches are over.''
  Tough compromises will have to be made by both the Israelis and the 
Palestinians. The United States is ready to assist both peoples in 
taking necessary risks for peace, and Israel is willing to sit down and 
commence those talks immediately with the Palestinians.

[[Page S5865]]

  The bid for United Nations recognition is also a distraction from the 
deteriorating situation in the Middle East, where governments of the 
region, both old and new, seem all too willing to use Israel as a 
target and as a scapegoat, rather than face the legitimate needs of 
their own people.
  In Turkey, for example, the government has stretched to seek a 
confrontation with Israel rather than address the humanitarian disaster 
on its doorstep in Syria. In Egypt, the government honored those who 
attacked the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, rather than release from 
detention their citizens arrested for advocating for democratic reforms 
and freedom. Most concerning to this Chamber, Iran's Government has 
doggedly pursued nuclear weapons and threatens to destabilize the 
entire region. Nobody is fooled about the military dimensions of Iran's 
nuclear program.
  On this day we do not yet know how the Palestinian Authority's bid 
for statehood recognition at the United Nations will be resolved. I do 
know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will not be sidetracked 
from advocating for the hard work toward peace. By encouraging the 
Palestinian Authority to return to the negotiating table, which they 
have refused to do, and by continuing strong United States-Israel 
defense cooperation our Nation will deter those who would seek to 
achieve victory over Israel by either using the force of arms or 
manipulating international institutions such as the United Nations.
  By sending the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation 
Act of 2011 to the President for his signature, we can do our part to 
call attention to Iran's use of denial and deceit to advance its 
nuclear program. By passing a foreign operations appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2012 that aligns our assistance with our international 
commitments--including over $3 billion in aid to Israel--this body 
will, again, demonstrate its leadership in striving for peace.
  Finally, I would be remiss if I did not call attention to the fact 
that while each of us was free to hear the President's remarks, 
yesterday was and today remains another day that Gilad Shalit is held 
hostage by Hamas. As a nation founded on the unalienable right to 
liberty, we must repudiate those who seek to forge a nation while 
continuing to collaborate with his captors. I urge his release.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and the President on all 
of these efforts. They are truly bipartisan. They unite us as a body 
and they unite the American people. I thank you.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for 
up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I would like to thank my friend, the Senator from 
Connecticut. Let me add my voice to his. There is no better friend or 
stronger ally. This is one of the key relationships our country has. 
Like the Senator from Connecticut and the Presiding Officer and others, 
we have a lot of things in this body we disagree with, but our firm 
support for Israel, particularly at a time when there is so much 
turmoil in that region, it is important the Senator from Connecticut, 
Mr. Blumenthal, spoke on that issue.


                     Recognizing Federal Employees

  I am going to take a moment today to repeat something I do on a 
regular basis. It is something I inherited from the former Senator from 
Delaware, Mr. Kaufman, when he was here. He would, on a fairly regular 
basis, come down and recognize the great work of individual Federal 
employees.
  We spend a lot of time in this body talking about what government 
does not do well and how we need to rein in and get our government in 
order. I know the Presiding Officer and I share those beliefs. There 
are an awful lot of good folks who work for our Federal Government day 
in and day out who do not get much recognition but provide incredibly 
valuable service to literally 300 million Americans.
  So following in Mr. Kaufman's footsteps, I come down and pick a 
Federal employee to recognize. I will get to this Federal employee in a 
moment.
  Let me just say we have already seen rumblings in the press of 
another potential political brinksmanship around the end of the fiscal 
year. I see my good friend, the Senator from Maryland, who, like me, a 
Senator from Virginia, has a disproportionate number of Federal 
employees in our respective States. The Presiding Officer from West 
Virginia probably has a disproportionate number of Federal employees as 
well.
  Every time we get to that eleventh hour, we put all these Federal 
employees' lives in limbo, and that is not fair. It is not right. Every 
time we do this, we self-inflict upon this economy another effort 
imposed by us that slows our economic recovery. I know the majority 
leader and others are trying to work in good faith to make sure we do 
not have another brinksmanship around the end of the fiscal year.
  Mr. CARDIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank my colleague from Virginia. He is absolutely 
right. We went through a pretty tough time a month ago when we reached 
an agreement on the funding levels. It should be a very simple process 
to get a continuing resolution passed that will extend the government 
based upon the agreement that was reached just a month ago.
  The Senator from Virginia is right about our Federal workforce. Our 
Federal workforce is doing more work with less people. They are 
subjected to a 2-year pay freeze, which they were subjected to before 
we had an agreement to deal with the deficit. For the sake of our 
Federal employees, for the sake of the people who depend upon their 
service, and for the sake of our economy and for good governance, the 
passage of what we call a clean continuing resolution that allows us to 
work out the individual appropriations bills should be beyond any 
disagreement.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia for his leadership not only on 
behalf of Federal employees, but also on behalf of sensible budgeting 
so we do not have to go through this type of ordeal and put people 
through this unnecessary anxiety.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I will now take a 
moment in this continuing effort to recognize examples of the kind of 
people who serve our government--oftentimes for not much recognition, a 
lot less pay and, candidly, some disdain from people on both sides of 
the aisle.


                        Honoring Alfonso Batres

  Mr. President, I am pleased to honor Dr. Alfonso Batres, who is the 
chief readjustment counseling officer at the Veterans Health 
Administration. He has direct oversight of 300 vet centers, 50 mobile 
vet centers, and over 1,900 vet center staff providing readjustment 
service to war zone veterans and their families across the United 
States. He has worked extensively to ensure vet centers--which are 
small storefront operations located throughout the country--are 
accessible to as many people as possible. His efforts led to nearly 
200,000 veterans and their families to visit vet centers a total of 1.2 
million times in 2011 alone.
  Dr. Batres has also expanded the scope of coverage for vet centers 
and worked to improve the quality of the services offered to veterans. 
For example, he provided family bereavement service and the Combat Call 
Center, which allows veterans to talk to other combat veterans about 
readjustment issues they may be experiencing.
  Dr. Batres' dedication to providing quality veteran-centric care has 
led to praise throughout the health care community. According to 
Lawrence Deyton, a former Veterans Affairs colleague:

       Dr. Batres' combination of vision and personal experience . 
     . . has translated into the Vet centers becoming the gold 
     standard, and a model for public health programs.

  In an interview, Dr. Batres said:

       The opportunity to serve veterans and their families as a 
     civil servant through the Vet centers program has been a 
     dream realized and an honor.

  In 2009, when I first joined this body, I helped launch a 
comprehensive study that evaluated the quality of care and benefits we 
are providing to our returning combat veterans, especially women who 
are affected by post-traumatic stress syndrome and traumatic brain 
injury. I think we are very fortunate to

[[Page S5866]]

have someone as dedicated as Dr. Batres working on these important 
issues.
  I hope my colleague will join me in honoring the doctor, as well as 
all of those at the Department of Veterans Affairs, for their excellent 
work today. I also am proud to recognize that Dr. Batres, as a 
Virginian and a Vietnam veteran, has dedicated 37 years to public 
service.
  As I was saying earlier, along with the Senator from Maryland, there 
will be issues on which we disagree with our friends on the other side 
of the aisle. We have to have a way to argue, debate, and decide on 
those disagreements, but let's make sure we do not put this country and 
our Federal employees in more--and, equally important, the 300 million 
Americans who not only depend on those services that are provided, but 
mostly are about trying to recover in this economy--let's not have act 
3 of that kind of political brinksmanship which started in the spring 
and then over the debt crisis and now potentially at the end of this 
month, which are, in effect, self-inflicted wounds on our economy that 
is struggling so much to recover.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 651

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Rubio for offering his 
important amendment that will constrain spending on TAA by limiting TAA 
benefits to workers negatively impacted by free trade agreements 
negotiated by the U.S. Government.
  As I explained in offering my amendment yesterday to tighten the 
standard of eligibility for TAA, the expanded TAA Program will grow and 
grow and cost more and more taxpayer money. The expanded TAA Program 
proposed by the chairman is no longer about trade policy but, rather, 
about expanding a domestic spending program. The TAA Program proposed 
by our friends across the aisle extends TAA to services workers and to 
workers impacted by shifts of production or services to any foreign 
country. In an integrated and rapidly expanding global economy, 
conceivably all business decisions made at home and abroad could 
trigger TAA's generous benefits.
  As I predicted at the beginning of this debate, many of my friends 
who support TAA have argued that more people used the TAA Program when 
it was expanded in 2009; therefore, it must be working. I strongly 
reject this argument. Spending more money and certifying more workers 
does not mean a program is succeeding; it simply means the program is 
expanding and costing more and more taxpayer dollars.
  Proponents of an expanded TAA Program tell us there is a moral 
obligation for the government to help mitigate the costs from job 
losses associated with increased imports and offshore outsourcing, 
which often occurs as a result of direct government policies, that is, 
trade agreements. But why do we choose to reward some Americans who 
lose their jobs due to adjusting to some Federal policies--in this 
case, trade policy--but not others? Even if one were to concede that 
the Federal Government has some obligation to help those who lose their 
jobs due to the trade policy actions of the United States, surely 
workers who lose their jobs for reasons that have nothing to do with 
Federal Government actions should not receive these favorable TAA 
benefits.
  I have heard lots of talk about the improvements made in the 2009 TAA 
stimulus expansion. One word I do not hear much anymore is 
``globalization,'' because if you go back and look at the actual bill, 
the 2009 stimulus TAA package was actually called TGAA, trade and 
globalization adjustment assistance. The chairman has dropped the 
``globalization'' reference in the title of the TAA extension amendment 
we are considering today, but the legislation retains the untenable 
expansion of eligibility criteria included in the 2009 stimulus 
version.
  The TAA Program we will vote on today, as offered by the chairman has 
lost any nexus to U.S. trade policy actions. Under the chairman's 
expanded TAA Program, workers who lose their jobs, allegedly due to 
shifts in production to non-free-trade agreement countries, will be 
eligible for the generous TAA benefits.
  As I highlighted in my remarks yesterday about Solyndra, in a dynamic 
U.S. and global economy, businesses can start up and shut down for many 
reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with foreign trade and 
certainly nothing to do with any specific U.S. trade policy. Solyndra 
failed due to a bad business model and an ill-conceived Federal loan of 
a half a billion dollars in taxpayer money--it was a little bit more 
than that--not because of trade policy. That Solyndra workers may 
receive TAA benefits highlights the problems with the program.
  Globalization has changed how our businesses operate--both large and 
small--and all the variables that now impact buying and selling 
decisions through global supply chains, shifting demographics, shifting 
demand trends, different tax regimes, and ever-changing investment 
climates will necessarily create opportunities and challenges for all 
American businesses. We should help American businesses and farmers 
compete for the new customers and consumers around the world, and we do 
this best by prying open those markets, protecting American 
intellectual property rights and investments, and strengthening the 
rule of law.
  That is why my colleagues and I continue to push the White House to 
send the three pending free-trade agreements to Congress for a vote, so 
we can help our businesses and farmers better compete in a global 
economy. If we want to help our economy and create jobs, passing the 
FTAs should be our first order of business.
  The best response to globalization is to harness its dynamic growth 
to our benefit, not to choose winners and losers and give them unproven 
training and additional income support and health care entitlements. If 
the purpose of TAA is to help workers adjust to trade policy actions by 
the government, then only those workers impacted by trade with U.S. 
free-trade agreement countries should be eligible.
  Again, I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Rubio, for offering 
this important amendment and trying to look out for the taxpayer and 
narrowly constrain spending on TAA. I urge my colleagues to support his 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 650

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 650 to make it 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 650.

  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 650

(Purpose: To require a report on the consequences of failing to act on 
                           trade agreements)

       At the end, add the following:

                         TITLE ___--ITC REPORT

     SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Quantifying the Effects of 
     Failure to Act on Trade Act''.

     SEC. __02. ITC REPORT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Failure to act on agreement.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date that the President enters into a trade 
     agreement, the International Trade Commission shall submit a 
     report described in subsection (b) to Congress, if --
       (A) legislation to implement the agreement has not been 
     submitted to Congress;
       (B) a bill to implement the agreement has not been 
     considered by either House of Congress; or
       (C) the agreement has not entered into force with respect 
     to the United States.
       (2) Follow up report.--The International Trade Commission 
     shall update the report required by paragraph (1) each year 
     thereafter, if legislation to implement the agreement has not 
     been submitted to Congress, a

[[Page S5867]]

     bill to implement the agreement has not been considered by 
     either House of Congress, or the agreement has not entered 
     into force.
       (b) Contents of Report.--The report required by subsection 
     (a) shall contain the following:
       (1) A quantitative analysis of the impact on United States 
     businesses and individuals caused by the delay in the 
     implementation of the agreement. The analysis shall examine 
     all relevant factors impacting United States businesses and 
     individuals, including--
       (A) lost market shares for United States exports in foreign 
     markets resulting from new trade agreements implemented 
     between the country with respect to which the trade agreement 
     was entered into and any other country, and market shares 
     lost for United States exports resulting from any other 
     factor;
       (B) how the delay in implementing the agreement is 
     affecting the advancement of United States trade objectives, 
     described in the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 
     2002 (or any subsequent trade promotion authority); and
       (C) how the delay in implementing the agreement is 
     affecting the protection of intellectual property rights of 
     United States businesses operating in foreign markets.
       (2) The impact on employment in the United States resulting 
     from the delay in implementing the agreement.
       (3) An estimate of the probable impact on United States 
     businesses, in terms of exports, profitability, and 
     employment, if the trade agreement does not enter into force 
     by the end of the calendar year following the date of the 
     Commission report
       (c) Applicability.--The International Trade Commission 
     shall submit the report required by this section with respect 
     to--
       (1) any trade agreement entered into on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) any trade agreement entered into before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act if such agreement has not entered into 
     force with respect to the United States by June 30, 2012.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment, which 
I filed yesterday afternoon, which deals with what I believe is a very 
important topic; that is, the high cost of delay when it comes to the 
pending free-trade agreements. I raised this issue yesterday, and I 
wish to reemphasize my comments in light of the fact that we will be 
voting on this amendment this afternoon.
  Most of the debate the last few days has been about the merits of 
trade adjustment assistance. But there is another aspect of trade 
adjustment assistance renewal we should consider. It is the fact that 
there has been a real cost to America's economy and to the American 
businesses as a result of the President's strategy to link passage of 
the three trade agreements to a renewal of an expanded Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Program.
  This is very unfortunate, especially considering that even the White 
House acknowledges that passing the trade agreements is one of the best 
things we could do in the short term to create jobs. According to the 
Business Roundtable, the passage of the trade agreements will support 
250,000 American jobs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that as 
many as 380,000 U.S. jobs could be in jeopardy if we do not pass the 
free-trade agreements.
  One would think passage of these trade agreements, which were signed 
in 2006 and 2007, would have been an early priority for the Obama 
administration. Yet here we are more than 2\1/2\ years into this 
administration, and the President still has not made a commitment to 
send us the trade agreements so we can consider them.
  Perhaps some might say it takes time to get an agreement implemented 
after it has been signed. Let's consider some recent trade deals the 
United States has negotiated. Consider the U.S.-Australia Free Trade 
Agreement. This agreement with an important ally was signed on May 18, 
2004, and entered into force on June 1, 2005, a little over 1 year 
later.
  Consider the U.S.-Chile agreement. This agreement was signed on June 
6, 2003, and entered into force on January 1, 2004, only a little over 
half a year later. Perhaps we should look at the U.S.-Peru agreement. 
This agreement was signed on April 12, 2006, was passed by the 
Democratically controlled House in November of 2007, and the 
Democratically controlled Senate in December of 2007.
  Let me repeat. A Democratic House and Democratic Senate took up and 
passed an agreement, negotiated and signed by a Republican President, 
just over a year and a half after it was signed. So we know that even 
when the President and the majority in Congress come from different 
parties, we have still been able to implement our trade agreements 
expeditiously for the good of the country.
  My point is not simply that the three pending free-trade agreements 
are long overdue. The point is, our process for considering trade 
agreements did not envision such long delays between signing and 
implementation. Nevertheless, we need to respond to this unfortunate 
reality, and my amendment helps us to do so.
  It is very simple. Under current trade promotion authority 
procedures, the International Trade Commission must prepare a report 
that is submitted to the Congress no later than 90 days after a trade 
agreement is signed. However, there is currently no requirement that 
the ITC conduct a study to assess the negative impact on U.S. 
businesses when we delay implementation of an agreement, as we have for 
more than 4 years with Korea, Colombia, and Panama.
  My amendment would simply require the ITC to assess the negative 
impact to U.S. businesses if a trade agreement is signed but has not 
been considered by Congress within 2 years. The ITC study would focus 
on lost U.S. export opportunities, how the delay has impacted U.S. 
trade objectives as set out under trade promotion authority, as well as 
how the delay impacts the protection of U.S. intellectual property 
overseas.
  The study would also estimate the impact on U.S. employment if the 
trade agreement in question continues to languish. Finally, the ITC 
would be required to update their study in every subsequent year that 
the trade agreement is not considered by Congress or if it is still not 
entered into force.
  My amendment follows a very basic principle. If the President 
believes a trade agreement is in America's national and economic 
interests, he needs to submit it to Congress. If he does not submit it 
to Congress, we need to have better information as to what the costs 
are of that delay. If we think these trade agreements are important--
and the President spent much of the month of August talking about the 
need to pass them, so clearly he believes they are important--then we 
need to be able to more effectively weigh the disadvantages imposed 
upon American businesses and consumers as a result of not implementing 
them.
  I wish to emphasize this is not a partisan amendment. It will apply 
to any future President who delays implementation of a trade agreement, 
Democratic or Republican. Why is this so important? Because the global 
economy in which American businesses compete is not static. It is 
dynamic, fast moving, and ever changing. As we stand here today, there 
are more than 100 new free-trade agreements currently under negotiation 
around the world. Yet the United States is a party to only one of those 
negotiations, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  I have with me the ITC report on the U.S.-Colombia agreement issued 
shortly after it was signed. The date on this report is December 2006, 
over 4\1/2\ years ago. Would it not be helpful to have a recent report 
that would take into consideration the impact to U.S. businesses from 
the Canada-Colombia trade agreement that recently went into effect or 
the EU-Colombia Free Trade Agreement that will go into effect next 
year?
  Let's consider the cost of delay to just one U.S. company, 
Caterpillar. As we all know, Caterpillar is a leading producer of large 
construction and mining equipment and a major U.S. exporter. 
Caterpillar exports 92 percent of its American-made large mining 
trucks. Caterpillar's large truck exports to Colombia face a 15-percent 
duty, which adds about $300,000 to the cost of each of those trucks 
exported to Colombia.
  Just imagine the advantage Caterpillar could have had for the last 
several years over its Japanese and Chinese competitors if the 
Democratic House in 2008 had not refused to consider the Colombia 
agreement when President Bush submitted it or if President Obama had 
submitted it promptly upon taking office.
  But the Caterpillar example is just one company. We did an unbiased, 
objective, and expert study on the cost to all U.S. businesses of 
delay. My amendment would accomplish this.
  Consider that U.S. companies have paid more than $5 billion in 
tariffs to Colombia and Panama since the trade

[[Page S5868]]

agreements with these nations were signed more than 4 years ago. More 
importantly, U.S. businesses have lost countless business opportunities 
in Korea, Colombia, and Panama.
  Consider another example, the market for agricultural products in 
Korea, which is the world's 13th largest economy. Korea's tariffs on 
imported agricultural goods average 54 percent, compared to an average 
9-percent tariff on these imparts into the United States. Passage of 
the Korea Free Trade Agreement will level the playing field. Yet this 
administration continues to delay sending these agreements to Congress.
  At a time of near-record unemployment and slow economic growth, this 
delay is unacceptable. This ongoing delay is having a real impact on 
American businesses, and it will only get worse as the EU-Korea 
agreement has now entered into force and European companies are getting 
the benefits of lower tariffs and market access.
  The Colombian market for agricultural products is another good 
example of the high cost of delay. In 2010, for the first time in the 
history of U.S.-Colombia trade, the United States lost to Argentina its 
position as Colombia's No. 1 agricultural supplier.
  Consider the story of the three main crops we grow in South Dakota: 
corn, wheat, and soybeans. The combined market share in Colombia for 
these three U.S. agricultural exports has decreased from 78 percent in 
2008 to 28 percent in 2010, a staggering decline of 50 percentage 
points. This situation will only get worse now that the Canada-Colombia 
agreement has taken effect as of August 15 of this year.

  As Gordon Stoner, a wheat grower from Outlook, MT, testified before 
the Finance Committee earlier this year: ``Our share of the Colombia 
wheat market has declined from 73 percent in 2008 to 43 percent in 
2010, and industry representatives in Colombia indicate we could lose 
our entire market share following implementation of the Canada-Colombia 
free trade agreement.''
  We are living in a global economy where America cannot afford to 
stand still on trade. There is another cost to the delay in submitting 
these free-trade agreements to Congress that we should consider. This 
is the loss of trust we may experience and be creating with new 
potential trade agreement partners. Consider, if a country is an 
emerging economy today and they have the opportunity to negotiate a 
comprehensive trade agreement with either the European Union or the 
United States, what message is our delay sending to those potential 
trading partners?
  Unfortunately, the message appears to be that if they negotiate with 
the EU, they will get the benefits of an agreement much sooner than if 
they spend the time and effort to negotiate an agreement with the 
United States. This is best exemplified by the negotiations with South 
Korea, a large economy, a major market for agricultural goods, as I 
mention, and manufactured goods as well as services.
  The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement was signed in June of 2007. 
Korea's trade agreement with the EU was launched in May of 2007, just 1 
month earlier. We had basically finished the entire negotiation process 
and wrapped up our agreement with Korea by the time the EU was just 
launching the beginning of their negotiations with Korea. As I 
mentioned earlier, the EU-Korea agreement has now taken effect, and the 
President has not even yet submitted our agreement with Korea to 
Congress for consideration.
  Again, we are not creating a favorable impression for any future 
trade agreement partners. As emerging economies mature, millions of new 
middle-class consumers enter the global marketplace. This is an 
impression we simply cannot afford to let persist. American businesses 
and exporters need acces to fast-developing markets.
  Imagine if American business operated the way Washington, DC 
operates. What if American companies, such as Apple or IBM, waited 4 or 
5 years to develop their next product? Would they continue to 
outinnovate their foreign competition? Of course not. Just as U.S. 
businesses cannot afford to stand still, the U.S. Government cannot 
afford to stand still as we have on trade for these past several years.
  In 1960, exports accounted for only 3.6 percent of U.S. GDP.
  Today, exports account for 12.5 percent of our GDP. Exports of U.S. 
goods and services support over 10 million American jobs. It is long 
past time that we get back in the game by passing the three pending 
trade agreements.
  My amendment will ensure that if we delay, if we fail to act, we will 
have a better assessment of the cost to American businesses and 
consumers of that delay. Hopefully, that information will make us more 
likely to act with a sense of urgency.
  My amendment should not be controversial. It doesn't change the 
underlying bill or change trade adjustment assistance. It should not be 
something that would affect the ability of this legislation to pass the 
House. It is a forward-looking amendment that will improve the process 
under which we consider future trade agreements.
  It is important that we get this done. The year 2006 is the last time 
we had an assessment of the impact of not acting on the Colombia Free 
Trade Agreement. Earlier today, Senator Baucus made some remarks about 
my amendment and referred to it as a ``backward-looking'' amendment. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not about casting blame 
or looking back; it is about improving trade by giving Congress better, 
more comprehensive information on the impact of delay.
  Senator Baucus said earlier that nobody disputes the harm from 
delaying agreements. But has the U.S. Government quantified the harm of 
the delay in a comprehensive fashion so that we know exactly the cost 
the delays are imposing on U.S. businesses and individuals and impact 
on U.S. employment or on the protection of U.S. intellectual property 
in foreign markets? The answer is no. As a result, it is more difficult 
than it should be to balance the benefits of this delay on the one 
hand, which would be any benefits from renewal of the expanded TAA, 
with the cost on the other hand. This is 9 months away. I certainly 
hope the Colombia, Korea, and Panama Free Trade Agreements will pass 
soon and go into effect long before next June.
  This amendment is forward looking, as it applies to future trade 
agreements, if they are not submitted to Congress or considered by 
Congress or not entered into force within 2 years of being signed. This 
will apply to a trade agreement by a future Republican President just 
as much as by a Democratic President. If there is a substantial delay 
in implementing a trade agreement the United States signed in good 
faith with another nation, whatever the reason for the delay, maybe we 
in Congress should have better information as to the specific impact on 
U.S. businesses of this delay. That is all this amendment would do. It 
doesn't affect GSP or TAA. It would not imperil this bill in the House. 
There is no good reason to oppose this amendment. I hope we can adopt 
it today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment 
filed by my colleague from South Dakota. This amendment deals with an 
important issue, namely, the cost of delay when it comes to free-trade 
agreements.
  The President's desire to increase spending on TAA--an expensive 
domestic spending program of debatable worth--at a time when taxpayers 
are struggling to make ends meet during a recession makes no sense to 
me.
  His strategy to link passage of FTAs to renewal of this expanded TAA 
program is equally perplexing. TAA is meant to assist workers who have 
allegedly lost their jobs due to trade. But the administration has 
repeatedly stated that the three pending trade agreements will create 
jobs, not cause people to lose them.
  According to the Business Roundtable, passage of the three pending 
trade agreements will support 250,000 American jobs. Since jobs will be 
created rather than lost, it makes no sense to link the passage of an 
expanded version of trade adjustment assistance to these three FTAs. In 
fact, the only jobs lost to date have been those caused by the 
President's refusal to send these FTAs to Congress. His refusal to act 
has caused U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and service providers

[[Page S5869]]

to cede market share to our competitors in Panama, Colombia, and South 
Korea.
  Given the state of the economy under this administration, one would 
think passage of these trade agreements--which were handed to the 
President wrapped up in a bow by his predecessor--would be the first 
order of business. Yet, here we are, more than halfway into this 
administration and the President has not even made a commitment to send 
us the trade agreements so we can consider them.
  My colleague's amendment would help us assess the impact of the 
President's delay, and future Presidents as well, on the American 
economy.
  The amendment would require the ITC to assess the negative impact to 
U.S. businesses if a trade agreement is signed but has not been 
considered by Congress within 2 years. Among other things, the ITC 
study would highlight lost U.S. export opportunities, the impact on the 
protection of U.S. intellectual property overseas, the impact on U.S. 
employment to date, and the prospective impact on U.S. employment if 
agreements are not sent to Congress.
  If the President believes these trade agreements will create jobs, he 
needs to submit them to Congress. It is absurd that they are still 
sitting on the President's desk, while our companies and workers lose 
market share to our competitors in Colombia, South Korea, and Panama.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire be 
permitted to make her remarks at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank my colleague. I agree with both of my 
colleagues, who have spoken, that we live in a globalized economy, and 
it is important for us to make sure we have the benefits of that 
globalized economy in America. It has offered us incredible new 
opportunities. But there are opportunities that have not been shared 
equally across our economy and our workforce.
  I believe that when given a level playing field, the American 
workforce has shown it can outcompete and outinnovate any economy in 
the world. That is the way we will get our economy moving again, by 
unleashing the power of American entrepreneurship.
  I have spoken before about ending the false debate between so-called 
free trade and fair trade. I think we need competitive trade, a policy 
that focuses on growing U.S. exports, opening new markets for U.S. 
companies, job training for our workforce, and tough enforcement of 
trade rules.
  We can help our workforce compete by giving them access to foreign 
markets. Fully 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of the 
United States, but only 1 percent of U.S. small businesses is doing 
business outside of the United States, or exporting their products. 
Increasing our exports is vital to the long-term health of our economy.
  At the same time, we have to acknowledge that trade creates new 
challenges for many American companies and American workers. We have to 
understand no graph showing GDP growth is a comfort to a mother who 
suddenly cannot feed her family because her factory has shut down; and 
no statistic about market efficiency is going to pay a young man's rent 
when his company moves its engineering operations overseas. When 
Congress promotes international trade, it enters into a compact with 
all American workers that they will not be left behind. Competitive 
trade means making sure all of us can compete.
  For nearly 50 years, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been 
lending a hand to workers faced with the negative consequences of 
international trade. It has been supported by liberals and 
conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. Its premise is simple: If you 
lose your job to foreign trade, we will help you prepare for a new 
career and help keep you afloat while you train. Over the last 2 years, 
almost a half million Americans have begun a new chapter in their lives 
with the help of trade adjustment assistance.

  In 2009, Congress enacted some commonsense reforms to the TAA 
Program. For years, Americans who lost their jobs to India or China 
were denied access to this program because the United States doesn't 
have a specific trade agreement with either country. Given the growing 
economic power of those two nations, that left an unacceptable number 
of Americans facing trade effects on their own. In 2009, we changed the 
program so that TAA supported all Americans whose jobs were sent 
overseas. But those reforms have, unfortunately, expired. This week, we 
have the opportunity to restore them, and we should.
  The 2009 reforms also updated the TAA Program to protect workers in 
service industries, in addition to those in manufacturing. Fifty years 
ago, when the program was created, no one could have imagined the 
advances in technology that would allow foreign service workers and 
engineers to compete with our own domestic workers in those fields. 
This week, we have an opportunity to restore the 21st century 
perspective to the TAA Program.
  I want to share a couple of stories about New Hampshire workers who 
have benefited from trade adjustment assistance. The first is a story 
about Joanne Sanschagrin of Gilmanton, who worked at Aavid Thermalloy 
for 22 years. She was a buyer for the company, but the company was 
threatened by competition from several nations, including China. She 
knew she needed to get a new job before she was laid off. Under the old 
TAA terms, the ones we are operating under now, she would not qualify 
for help under TAA. Under the 2009 reforms, Joanne sought and received 
training as a licensed nursing assistant. She completed training in 
June, and last month she began a job in her new career, and she loves 
it. TAA has supported her through this process and paid for her 
training, so instead of being unemployed, she is now a dynamic part of 
our economy, working in one of its fastest growing fields.
  Another New Hampshire worker, Robert Arsenault, who is a veteran, had 
worked for 21 years making paper at the mills in Gorham and Berlin. The 
paper industry has been devastated by offshore competition. As the 
Chair knows, we have lost so many of our mills throughout northern New 
England. When those mills in Berlin and Gorham closed, Robert used 
trade adjustment assistance to get a commercial driver's license at the 
White Mountains Community College. He recently started a new full-time 
job with a paving and contracting company.
  TAA doesn't just help out individual workers; it also helps small 
businesses that are being hurt by international trade. New England 
Forest Products is a hardwood manufacturing company that has been 
operating in Greenfield, NH, since 1993. But during the recent 
recession, they found themselves losing business to cheap Chinese 
lumber. In search of answers, they applied to the local trade 
adjustment assistance center for help. They worked with TAA to develop 
a marketing strategy and advertising materials that now help the small 
business sell their hardwood flooring and other products directly to 
consumers. In part because of this important program, New England 
Forest Products saw sales increase 28 percent in the following year.
  This isn't just one encouraging story. Of the 18 businesses in New 
Hampshire that have received TAA in the last 4 years, all 18 are still 
operating, and many are adding employees. These are the kinds of 
stories the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program makes possible, but 
only if we sustain these critical reforms and strengthen TAA's role as 
both a critical safety net and a driver of the American economy for 
decades to come.
  I urge my colleagues to support the trade adjustment assistance 
amendment when it comes to the floor for a vote later today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to emphasize one final time, as we 
get closer to votes on these amendments, the importance of getting the 
free-trade agreements passed and put into force, but also the 
importance of understanding that, as we move into the future, we not 
make the mistakes we have made with respect to these agreements, and 
that is to let them languish literally years, and at the same time be 
losing market share, be losing jobs for Americans, and be losing market 
opportunities for American businesses.

[[Page S5870]]

  Again, I wish to point out just a couple things I think personalize 
this; one, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, we have a company such 
as Caterpillar, which makes large mining trucks and exports 92 percent 
of them. They pay a $300,000-per-truck tariff to get into the Colombian 
market. Think of a country such as South Korea, with the 13th largest 
economy in the world. They are a big importer of American agricultural 
goods, with 54 percent right now being the average tariff on goods that 
are exported from the United States--agricultural products exported 
from here to Korea, but 9 percent is the average tariff on their goods 
coming into this country. That 54-to-9 ratio is an incredible 
disadvantage, putting American businesses at a tremendous disadvantage 
relative to the countries around the world with whom they have to 
compete.
  At the same time these trade agreements have been languishing here 
for over 4 years, other countries have stepped in--the European Union, 
Australia, and Canada--and filled the vacuum we have left. As a 
consequence, American businesses have been hurt and hurt profoundly. 
More importantly, as we sit in this economy we are in and talk about 
the importance of job creation, there isn't anything we could do that 
would probably create jobs more quickly than to get these trade 
agreements enacted. It means thousands of jobs for Americans, it means 
business opportunities for American businesses overseas, and it means 
market share we should be maintaining or perhaps even acquiring and 
that we are losing as a result of not having these agreements entered 
in force after they have been negotiated these many years ago.
  So my amendment looks prospectively into the future. It requires that 
we know specifically--quantitatively--what are the impacts of delay 
when it comes to getting these free-trade agreements not only ratified 
by the Congress but entered into force with these other countries. I 
think it is critical information we need to know. We need to know what 
harm, what economic consequences are the result of these trade 
agreements being delayed.
  I hope we will get bipartisan support for this amendment today. It 
doesn't do anything to alter TAA. It doesn't do anything to alter GSP. 
It doesn't do anything to affect the passage of this agreement in the 
House. But it will, as we look into the future, make it much more clear 
to us what these economic impacts are with regard to these trade 
agreements and our delay in getting them implemented.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 634

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the amendment that 
has been introduced by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. I think it 
is amendment No. 634. I will take only a few minutes, as I know my 
colleague from Indiana is waiting, but I do wish to speak to it, if I 
may.
  The Senator from Texas has introduced an amendment that takes an 
unprecedented step in the Senate; that is, the step of actually 
requiring the President, by mandate--with respect to one weapon system 
in one singular amendment--to sell a specific weapon to another 
country. Specifically, the Senator wants to take the unprecedented step 
of requiring the President of the United States to sell 66 new F-16 
fighter aircraft to Taiwan.
  The amendment mandates the sale of these new aircraft, despite the 
fact that just yesterday the President and the administration notified 
Congress of their intention to provide Taiwan with nearly six billion 
dollars' worth of items in defense goods and services, on top of money 
they have already provided to Taiwan--including upgrades to Taiwan's 
current fleet of 145 F-16s.
  I will stand by my record of 26-plus years of voting for the 
appropriate defense relationship with respect to Taiwan and China. We 
have always respected the Taiwan Relations Act, and I think we have 
consistently stood by Taiwan and kept faith with that act. Without a 
doubt, the growing military disparity between China and other countries 
in the region, as well as China and Taiwan, is something we need to be 
thinking about and taking into account as we contemplate the long-term 
future of all those relationships in that region. But that said, I am 
opposed to this specific amendment. I believe Senator Baucus, who has 
already spoken in opposition to it, and others, I believe, are opposed 
to it for two appropriate reasons: one, the substance of the amendment 
itself--and I will speak to that--but also, plain and simply, this is 
not the right vehicle to address this issue.
  Everybody understands that consideration of TAA is part of a very 
complicated approach to what Senator Thune just commented on--a much-
too-long-awaited dealing with several trade agreements a lot of us want 
to pass and we think we should pass. Passage of this TAA proposal--
without these other issues being added to it, which would put it in 
jeopardy--is critical to being able to help American workers as well as 
to lining up those three pending trade agreements which will create 
jobs in the United States and which will also enhance our security. So 
if we were to pass the Cornyn amendment--which we know the 
administration strongly opposes--that would imperil this very carefully 
crafted jobs package we are now considering.
  On that basis alone, I would urge colleagues to vote against this 
amendment. But I believe there are powerful, substantive reasons for 
why this amendment shouldn't pass just on its own. Mandating the sale 
of one particular weapon is not the way for the United States to 
respond or to deal with or manage the complex national security 
challenge of that region and the complexity of the relationship with 
Taiwan.
  I would remind colleagues that the $6 billion in new arms sales, of 
various kinds--including a major upgrade package to all the 145 F-16s--
is an enormous, important package which Taiwan wants and needs and 
which Taiwan believes will bring it up to par with respect to those 
systems and the need to be able to defend itself.

  I think we have to remember that ever since President Nixon opened 
the door to China nearly 40 years ago, the United States has worked 
very carefully to promote peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. The 
Taiwan Relations Act has long governed our policy toward Taiwan because 
we don't have a formal diplomatic relationship or a formal treaty.
  With respect to arms sales, let me share with my colleagues what the 
TRA says. It shall be the policy of the United States ``to provide 
Taiwan with arms of a defensive character'' and ``to maintain the 
capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other 
forms of coercion'' which would jeopardize the security of the people 
of Taiwan. Finally, the TRA obligates the United States to provide such 
defense goods and services to Taiwan as are ``necessary to enable 
Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.''
  The Obama administration and the committees of jurisdiction in the 
Senate and House, with respect to it, take the provisions of that act 
very seriously. The administration has carefully analyzed, as have we, 
the military balance across the Taiwan Strait, and we have consulted 
closely with the Government of Taiwan as to how to best meet Taiwan's 
defensive needs.
  On Wednesday, the administration formally notified Congress of its 
intent to send a very substantial retrofit package that would upgrade 
the current fleet. As I mentioned, there are 145 F-16s that Taiwan has 
today and that Taiwan relies on today for its current defense needs. 
These upgrades include state-of-the-art avionics and weaponry--
including Actively Electronically Scanned Array Radars, targeting 
systems, the AIM-9X air-to-air missiles, and precision-guided 
munitions. So I don't believe there is any question but that the United 
States is now, and will continue to be, in full compliance with the 
requirements of the TRA.
  But this package also makes clear that support for Taiwan is not a 
partisan issue. The Bush administration, in its 8 years--two full 
terms--notified Congress of the sale of roughly $15 billion total in 
arms sales to Taiwan. With the announcement of this sale of the 
additional items Taiwan needs, the administration--the Obama 
administration--in less than 3 years has approved the sale of over $12 
billion in arms to Taiwan. So we have $15 billion

[[Page S5871]]

over 8 years from the Bush administration and $12 billion over 3 years 
from the Obama administration.
  Moreover, the administration's $5.8 billion retrofit and training 
proposal provides the necessary parts, equipment, training, and 
logistical support for a cost-effective upgrade of Taiwan's current 
status; most importantly, it elevates Taiwan's current fleet of F-16s 
to a level of capability consistent with the most advanced export 
variants of this aircraft.
  Let us understand where we are--what the state of play is. Taiwan has 
an urgent defense need today. They have 145 aircraft we have already 
sold them. We are prepared to provide them an upgrade that brings those 
aircraft up to the total state of the art of the most advanced export 
variants we are allowed to export to another country, and it will 
prevent these 145 aircraft from becoming obsolete. This is the most 
sensible, cost-effective, effective way to provide an upgrade and to 
provide Taiwan with the capacity it needs.
  To the degree people are thinking jobs in the United States of 
America and what about selling, a lot of us have never believed we 
ought to use defense sales or weapons sales to create jobs. There are a 
lot more effective ways of creating jobs. But to whatever degree 
anybody wants to measure this by that standard, the $5.8 billion sale 
announced yesterday will be welcome news to the workers of Lockheed 
Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Pratt & Whitney, and many other 
defense firms.
  Again, I emphasize that is not the rationale for the sale, and none 
of us should resort to those kinds of sales for the purpose of jobs. 
But if that is going to be a measurement or a consideration in 
anybody's mind, make no mistake, the $6 billion the President has 
proposed will have its own impact.
  Finally, let me point out to colleagues, and I think it is an 
important consideration, nothing in the proposed upgrade package will 
preclude the United States from providing new F-16s as we go down the 
road, as they may be necessary, as a judgment is made about them or any 
other similar platform to Taiwan in the future. The administration has 
taken pains to make clear to Congress and to Taiwan the approval of 
this sale does not and will not prejudice any future decision on new 
aircraft.
  Yesterday, President Ma Ying-jeou of Taiwan said the upgrades to 
Taiwan's existing F-16A/B jets are aimed at maintaining the country's 
self-defense capabilities while pursuing peaceful development across 
the Taiwan Strait.
  The President of Taiwan said of the upgrade package:

       We have to develop peaceful ties with Mainland China. But 
     we haven't for one second let our guard down when it comes to 
     Taiwan's security.

  I don't believe the Taiwanese believe they are letting their guard 
down. I don't think they believe we are not meeting their needs. 
Obviously, Congress has an important role to play in determining how to 
meet those needs, but I don't think we should, in the wake of the 
evidence here, make an independent judgment outside of what is already 
happening. We certainly shouldn't blindly defer to the Executive on 
Taiwan arm sales. But I think to compel the Executive to make a 
specific arms sale to a specific country measured against the steps 
already taken and the steps being taken would be an unprecedented 
intervention by the Senate under circumstances where there just has not 
been made the kind of compelling, urgent argument that that is the only 
way to proceed. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment when 
the time comes for us to vote on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes out of my 
remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank my colleague from Indiana.
  I would like to respond briefly to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  This isn't an assessment I have made that Taiwan needs these 
aircraft; this is one made by the Department of Defense in their 2011 
report on China's growing military power. They detailed the 
increasingly precarious situation in the Taiwan Strait, stating that 
China seeks the capability to deter Taiwan independence and influence 
Taiwan to settle the dispute on Beijing's terms.
  So it is clear from the press reports from China's state-run 
newspaper, the very bellicose comments, that this is really an attempt 
by mainland China, the People's Republic of China, to intimidate not 
only Taiwan but also the United States, and we should not give in to 
that intimidation.
  This chart which I pointed to earlier demonstrates the growing 
imbalance in the Taiwan Strait. This is why these additional aircraft 
are needed. The red one is 2,300 operational combat aircraft for the 
People's Republic of China versus 490 operational combat aircraft for 
the Taiwanese.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is correct to the extent that the 
upgrades are welcome on the 145 F-16s we previously sold to Taiwan. But 
it is not adequate because 100 of these aircraft currently operational 
by Taiwan are obsolete and are going to be retired. Taiwan has intended 
that the new F-16C/D series replace the fleet of F-5s--those were 
previously sold U.S. aircraft from the 1975 to 1985 range which are now 
old and obsolete--and then the French-made Mirage 2000-5 fighters. So 
100 of these planes demonstrated here, of the 490, are going to be 
retired, and the 66 aircraft that are the subject of this amendment 
will replace some of those retired vehicles.
  So I don't think that thinking about the future of our relationship 
with Taiwan or problems we may see on the horizon is enough. We need to 
do something now.
  I would also point out that you can't just take the production line 
at Lockheed Martin and basically eliminate it because there are no 
further demands or contracts for F-16 sales. Basically, all the 
personnel--the 23,000 people directly involved in those jobs--will be 
reassigned or be fired, let go, because there are no contracts in place 
as late as the fourth quarter of this year for new F-16s. So I think 
looking at this down the road doesn't take into account the current 
loss of jobs or the disruption of disbanding this production line, 
which cannot easily be reconstituted if there are no contracts, 
including the sale of these 66 F-16s.
  I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the allocation of time? 
The Senator from Vermont has generously yielded me the opportunity to 
speak for a few moments. I want to make sure I don't get the situation 
mixed up here so that we run out of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio, has 17 
minutes. The Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, has 9 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent to take 6 minutes of Senator 
Rubio's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would not object, but I ask consent that 
upon completion of that, I be allowed 7 minutes as though in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President I want to respond to some of the statements 
that have been made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
regarding the need to add disaster relief to the Continuing Resolution 
we will consider this week.
  There is no question that there is a need for some emergency 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2011 disaster relief. There 
is agreement on both sides of the aisle that FEMA is short of money to 
meet its immediate needs in this fiscal year which expires at midnight 
on September 30. The Disaster Relief Fund is dangerously low, and on 
September 9 the President requested $500 million in emergency 
appropriations to finish out the immediate needs between now and the 
end of this fiscal year, which is just a little more than 1 week away, 
and that has been provided and taken care of.
  The House is working on sending the Senate a continuing resolution 
that includes this emergency funding and more--more than the 
President's $500 million request. The House CR is expected to include 
$774 million for

[[Page S5872]]

FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency--plus an additional $226 
million for the Army Corps of Engineers for emergency flood control. 
This emergency funding is not covered by the Budget Control Act, so in 
accordance with procedures that have been put in place this year and in 
trying to be as careful with taxpayers' money as we can, the House 
offered an offset. That was defeated yesterday in the House.
  While this funding covers FEMA's immediate needs, as requested by the 
President, through the rest of the fiscal year, the House bill also 
includes additional funding at the current level of $2.65 billion in 
fiscal year 2012 for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which will provide 
the necessary funding to deal with the requests and make sure people 
get the support they need from losses in the various disasters through 
this continuing resolution period, which will go to around November 18.
  It is important to note that, despite some of the allegations being 
made, Republicans support this disaster funding. It is critical to 
respond to the many disasters that have affected so many States over 
the past few months. However, the additional funding for fiscal year 
2012 sought by Senator Reid and Senate Democrats is not needed 
immediately. In fact, the President has not requested immediate passage 
of any of this additional funding beyond what is needed to provide FEMA 
what it needs to address the situations and to make the necessary 
payments between now and the expiration of this current resolution 
which we will be voting on this week.
  This is not to say we should not consider additional disaster relief. 
I recognize the challenges that so many States face in response to the 
disasters that have recently struck across the country. My own home 
State of Indiana has experienced floods that merited a disaster 
declaration from the President earlier this year. As a nation, we need 
to step forward and address these immediate needs, but we have a 
process in place in this body to address this.
  The Budget Control Act recently passed by Congress does allow a 
process for providing disaster relief in fiscal year 2012 through a 
disaster cap adjustment. As a result from that, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee--which I am the ranking member of the Homeland 
Security Subcommittee which oversees FEMA--has been considering the 
fiscal year 2012 bill and has included disaster assistance, where 
appropriate, pursuant to the disaster cap adjustment in the Budget 
Control Act. The key words here are ``where appropriate.'' We need to 
be in a position to provide additional funding should more disasters 
occur. But there is no need to go forward with what Senator Reid has 
proposed, that is, dumping a lot of money that has not yet been 
certified as needed into an expenditure, particularly at a time when 
every dollar of expenditure needs to be carefully weighed in terms of 
our current fiscal situation.
  Some have noted that while the CR may adequately fund FEMA, it 
doesn't address the other agencies that need additional disaster 
funding. If that is the case, then why hasn't the President requested 
these additional funds immediately?
  On September 9, the President sent Congress his request for 
additional FEMA disaster relief funding, including the $500 million 
emergency funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. However, this 
request did not include any funding for the other agencies in Senator 
Reid's proposal.
  I ask unanimous consent for just 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. If this is the case, why did he not ask for this? We don't 
need to include this additional funding to meet the needs of the people 
for the disasters that have already occurred. The funding necessary to 
do that is included in the House bill on which we will be voting.
  Republicans want to ensure that the communities devastated by 
disasters receive the resources that will help them rebuild. We 
recognize that American citizens have had their lives turned upside 
down by Mother Nature. The CR will provide adequate disaster relief 
through November in accordance with the President's request and FEMA's 
stated needs. As a result, there is no need to have all of this 
additional assistance immediately as part of the CR. I urge Members to 
support passage of the CR the House will be sending us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


               Remembering Master Sergeant Shawn Stocker

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken many times here on the floor, 
as has the distinguished Presiding Officer, about the disaster and 
tragedy Vermont faced from Hurricane Irene.
  We all learned with profound sadness that MSG Shawn Stocker of the 
Vermont Air National Guard suffered a fatal heart attack while working 
on a road reconstruction project in Cavendish, VT. Sergeant Stocker was 
the first sergeant of the Vermont Air Guard's Civil Engineering 
Squadron. We in Vermont mourn this tragic loss, and our thoughts and 
prayers are with Sergeant Stocker's wife Kristine and their children. 
When I spoke with Kristine today, I told her that I would talk about 
her husband on the floor, and his sacrifice for his community, and for 
our country.
  It struck me that what happened on the morning of Sergeant Stocker's 
passing says much about him, and about the Vermont National Guard. When 
Sergeant Stocker passed, his troops gathered to consider how best to 
honor his memory that day. Ultimately, They decided to keep on working, 
to continue helping their neighbors in Cavendish. ``It is what Shawn 
would have wanted us to do,'' they said.
  We have talked often of the loss and suffering in Vermont in the 
aftermath of Hurricane Irene. But we must recognize the skillful and 
tireless work of the Vermont National Guard, which has been so critical 
to rebuilding our state. They have answered the call to duty to help 
their neighbors in need. Sergeant Stocker and his fellow Guard members 
put their country first, do whatever the mission requires, and we will 
never forget that.
  From the very beginning of the disaster up until today, the Vermont 
National Guard has been deployed to help Vermonters in need. I spoke to 
Secretary Panetta last night in Washington, and I told him what a great 
job the Vermont National Guard is doing.
  Let me show my colleagues a photograph. This photo is of a Vermont 
airdrop of supplies to a Vermont town. That town was totally cut off. 
The only way we could get in the supplies was to bring them in by 
helicopter. In the days following Irene, the Vermont National Guard 
immediately went into action to make sure the storm victims cut off by 
Irene's destruction received emergency supplies. Helicopters airdropped 
food and water, and we reached out to other State Guards.
  I talked with the Senators from Maine. They told me how happy their 
Guards were to be able to come down and help out. It demonstrates the 
versatility of the National Guard.
  In addition to meeting our immediate needs, the Vermont Guard has 
taken on major projects such as debris removal and road construction. 
As in so many other States, when Vermont has a need, our National Guard 
is there for us. Often they are the first to arrive and the last to 
leave. Guard units who have come to Vermont to help include ones from 
New York, Ohio, Maine, West Virginia, Virginia, South Carolina, and 
Illinois. All of these Guard units have said: We are here. Call us. 
Tell us what you need. That is one of the things we love about the 
National Guard. When one State needs help, every State steps up.
  One thing Vermont did need in the immediate aftermath of Irene was 
helicopters. The distinguished Presiding Officer and I helicoptered 
around the State. It was regrettable that our State needed more 
airlift. Why did we? Because many of our Black Hawk helicopters were 
still in Iraq following the most recent deployment. They are the most 
modern in the fleet, but they are in Iraq. In this season of war, it 
takes a moment to remember the troops and equipment sent overseas are 
not going to be available to help out at home if we need them in an 
emergency.
  Like that deployment of equipment, every dollar we spend on the 
conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan is one less dollar we have to invest 
in recovery and rebuilding in America.
  Let me show another photograph to my colleagues. Look at that 
National

[[Page S5873]]

Guard working to put in these roads. They are stretched thin, as are 
the National Guards all over this country because so many of them serve 
overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are talented engineers, 
talented men and women, people who know what to do and have the 
equipment. They can do things nobody else can do, certainly not in our 
little State.
  This is a time to choose investment at home first. I hear people tell 
me we can't pay for disasters in America unless we take money out of 
education or medical research or other things Americans need, but we 
can sign a blank check to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. I am saying, 
let's worry about America. Americans need help. We are asking for a 
tiny percentage of what we are spending on a credit card for Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  America needs us. The citizens in our States are suffering because of 
a natural disaster. The men and women of the Guard who have come to 
their aid deserve nothing less.
  For the last decade we have waged two wars on the Nation's credit 
card. We totally ignored paying for it during that time, even though we 
have raised taxes to pay for every other war in this Nation's history. 
We did, however, pause to throw ourselves a party in the form of tax 
breaks tilted toward the very wealthiest among us. The policy was 
wrong, and it hurt America.
  Now, after all these years of funding wars and rebuilding other 
countries overseas, the leadership of the House of Representatives, in 
their continuing budget resolution that was defeated yesterday, 
brazenly told the American people we can no longer afford to come to 
the aid of Americans in need. Instead we are going to offset the costs 
of rebuilding America by cutting a program that Americans badly need.
  This is ``Alice in Wonderland.'' Are they asking the wealthy to pay 
their fair share? No. Are they asking the oil and gas companies making 
record profits quarter after quarter to sacrifice their tax giveaways? 
No. Are they asking a sacrifice from those companies who get tax breaks 
for shipping American jobs overseas? No.
  That is wrong. We cannot ask these suffering people to sacrifice and 
refuse to ask those who have the most to contribute their fair share.
  We can't cut programs that are going to create new jobs, that provide 
a basic safety net for struggling families and seniors, while giving 
every break possible to the very wealthiest among us. It is 
unconscionable. It is not the American way.
  I have been privileged to be in the Senate representing our great 
State of Vermont for 37 years. We have always dealt with disaster bills 
together. We have worked across the aisle in the spirit of 
bipartisanship. Vermonters have not asked why we help out with an 
earthquake in California. We do it. Vermonters don't ask why we help 
out in Louisiana or Texas or Virginia. We do it.
  We are the United States of America. We work together. We can not 
afford to toss aside that tradition.
  The decision of some to inject politics and political point scoring 
into disaster relief is a new low for Congress, a Congress that is 
already scoring records for unfavorability. Leader Reid is right to 
call for a continuing resolution that includes an emergency disaster 
relief package that will get aid to all 50 States suffering from the 
effects of these unprecedented natural disasters.
  We try to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan and nobody questions that. 
Instead, let's rebuild America.
  I encourage my colleagues here and in the House of Representatives to 
do the right thing for people who need our help and move forward with 
Leader Reid's bill. Our fellow Americans need our support. Let's start 
spending some time worrying about America.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time 
to be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 633

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Casey-Reid 
amendment. Over the past several days we have had the opportunity to 
publicly discuss and debate a number of serious flaws in the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Program and its proposed expansion. Perhaps the 
most egregious aspect is voting to spend more taxpayer dollars on an 
expanded domestic spending program of dubious value at the very same 
time our colleagues on the supercommittee are scrutinizing every penny 
of Federal spending in a bipartisan effort to get our Federal deficit 
under control.
  It makes me wonder whether this body understands the gravity of the 
deficit we are facing. As a country, we are simply spending more money 
than we have. If it continues we are going to be bankrupt. We will 
bankrupt our country and leave behind a grim future for our children 
and grandchildren.
  We will hear many of my colleagues talk about how important it is to 
spend this money, and I am sure a lot of them will feel good about 
their votes. But we all know the good feeling that comes from buying 
things we cannot afford is fleeting while the debt accrued hangs like a 
dark cloud over our daily lives. We simply cannot afford to continue to 
spend money our country does not have. This is why I, for one, am 
voting no.
  Despite my concerns, I am convinced that this amendment and bill will 
pass. This spring, the President made it clear that if this domestic 
spending program was not expanded and approved he would abandon our 
allies in Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, and cede these growing 
markets to our foreign competitors. How shortsighted.
  While the President may have been willing to accept that outcome, 
many of my colleagues were not. They stepped up to the plate and vowed 
to support efforts to move the process forward. As a result, the deck 
in favor of this bill was stacked long ago.

  Still, I am glad we have had an open debate on the merits of this 
program. Earlier this year, the President attempted to shield TAA from 
strict scrutiny and debate by jamming it into the South Korea 
implementing bill. Doing so would have been a clear abuse of U.S. trade 
laws and would have denied the Senate an opportunity to fairly debate 
and amend TAA. The American people deserve better than this and Finance 
Committee Republicans fought hard to ensure that this did not happen. 
It is largely a result of their efforts that we are here today.
  Even though the deck was stacked against our amendments long ago, 
this discussion has been a useful exercise. It has been over 9 years 
since the Senate engaged in a real trade debate on the Senate floor. 
Senators deserve an opportunity to have their voices heard on issues 
related to international trade, and by engaging in debate we are 
honoring our republican constitutional traditions. We are doing what 
the American people expect us to do: openly discussing problems and, in 
doing so helping to resolve them.
  During this debate, a number of amendments were offered that enabled 
Senators to go on record regarding their trade priorities and core 
beliefs. For the first time in years, we were able to draw clear 
distinctions between rhetoric and action. Of course, there has been 
debate about the merits of the free-trade agreements themselves.
  As I noted earlier, the President and many of my colleagues who 
purport to support these agreements made it clear that in reality they 
only support the FTAs in exchange for something else. That something 
else turned out to be a demand for more spending. I am worried that 
going forward this pattern will continue. I certainly hope not. As a 
nation we cannot afford to hold our international economic 
competitiveness hostage to unrelated demands for more spending or for a 
more liberal social agenda.
  During the course of this debate, I have expressed concerns that the 
real cost of the TAA expansion bill is unknown. Recall that benefits 
under TAA are paid out on top of unemployment insurance, which is 
supposed to take care of those who are out of work. As more and more 
people take advantage of the program, and as the number of weeks of 
regular unemployment insurance contract, the cost of this entitlement 
program could spiral out of control. So a number of amendments were 
offered that would help constrain its future growth so we do not end up

[[Page S5874]]

sticking the American taxpayer with another out-of-control spending 
program.
  Every single one of these amendments was rejected by my colleagues 
across the aisle. Their passion for spending runs so deep that even an 
amendment by my friend and colleague, Senator Kyl, which implemented 
one of President Obama's recommendations to cut TAA funding for firms, 
was rejected. At a time when the supercommittee is struggling to cut 
spending in areas such as defense and health care, I find it 
astonishing that my colleagues cannot support eliminating a program 
that even President Obama agrees should be cut. That is a true rarity--
that is, that President Obama agrees to any kind of a cut, not that my 
colleagues will not support eliminating a program. That, we know, has 
happened around here for all of the 35 years I have been in the Senate. 
But even when President Obama, one of the biggest spenders in the 
history of the world, agrees that a program should be cut, they will 
not even do that.
  My colleagues across the aisle also chose to reject an amendment to 
provide their own President with the authority to negotiate new trade 
agreements. Can you believe that? We all know the authority to 
negotiate trade agreements expired years ago. Since then the United 
States has been sitting on the sidelines while other countries 
negotiate agreements all around the world. Everyone knows if we are not 
in the game we do not even have a small chance to win. Right now, the 
United States is not in the game.
  While it is true that the President is in the process of negotiating 
an agreement to create a transpacific partnership, we all know that the 
chances of it actually succeeding are actually almost nonexistent 
without trade promotion authority.
  While the protrade rhetoric sounds good from the other side, when it 
comes down to concrete action, President Obama and his Democratic 
colleagues are absent once again. I am perhaps most disturbed by their 
rejection of my amendment which would have made the expansion of this 
domestic spending program contingent upon submission, approval, and 
signature of our pending free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, 
and South Korea. This amendment simply held President Obama 
accountable.
  The President said there would be no FTAs unless Congress passed 
TAA. The insinuation is that if Congress does pass TAA, the President 
will submit, support, and sign all three FTAs.

  Yet, even today we do not know if that is the case. My understanding 
is the White House has given no indication they will actually submit 
these agreements for a vote. That is truly pathetic. They are willing 
to spend more. They are willing to pass TAA so they can spend more 
regardless of whether they are sincere about doing these free-trade 
agreements that will provide almost 250,000 new jobs in this country, 
or at least jobs.
  My amendment simply called for Presidential accountability. But even 
Presidential accountability was rejected by the other side. Once again, 
protrade rhetoric of the past several months has been shown to be 
nothing but a facade. I will be voting against the amendment to expand 
TAA, and if it is approved, I will vote against final passage of the 
bill. I simply cannot condone more spending on a program with dubious 
value at a time when our Nation is clearly broke. I remain hopeful 
President Obama will submit our pending free-trade agreements to 
Congress. If he does, and they are approved, I am confident President 
Obama and his team will drape themselves in the protrade flag and claim 
responsibility for moving these agreements forward. The fact of the 
matter is the authority to negotiate these agreements and the actual 
negotiation of these agreements themselves is due to the hard work of 
late nights of President Bush and his team. This is one instance where 
President Obama can rightly place responsibility at the feet of his 
predecessor.
  My Republican colleagues and I put forward a number of amendments 
during the week to constrain government spending, open foreign markets 
for our products, and hold the President accountable for his rhetoric. 
Unfortunately, every single one was defeated, mostly along party lines. 
But we will not be deterred. We will continue to fight against out-of-
control government spending. We will continue to fight for Presidential 
authority to open foreign markets to U.S. exports. We will continue to 
fight for transparency and accountability in our international trade 
policy. While we may not win the battle today, I am confident we will 
win in the end.
  Over the next year I plan to conduct rigorous oversight of President 
Obama's trade policy. If these agreements are eventually submitted and 
approved, I will work hard to make sure they enter into force quickly. 
I also plan to conduct extensive and continued oversight of the 
operation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. I am convinced it 
is a flawed program and that strong congressional oversight will help 
expose those flaws. I will also work hard to make sure our next 
President, whoever that may be, has the authority to negotiate strong 
trade agreements that tear down barriers to American exports. Over the 
past several days many of my colleagues expressed interest in updating 
this authority. I welcome that interest and want to express my sincere 
desire to work with them to immediately see that trade promotion 
authority is renewed. Our Nation and our workers cannot afford to wait.
  I ask unanimous consent that we divide the quorum call I am about to 
suggest equally between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam 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. I ask unanimous consent the votes with respect to 
amendments and passage of H.R. 2832, the GSP bill, occur at 4:30 p.m.; 
that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes; that prior to the 
vote in relation to the Cornyn amendment, there be 10 minutes equally 
divided, with remaining provisions of the previous order remaining in 
effect; finally, the amount of additional time this agreement adds for 
debate on the bill and amendments prior to the votes be equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Education Reform

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, according to the Washington Post this 
morning, the President and his Education Secretary will announce 
tomorrow that the Department of Education will begin a process to grant 
waivers to States from the provisions of No Child Left Behind. No Child 
Left Behind, of course, is a law that was passed with bipartisan 
support in 2001 and 2002 by Congress. We are in its ninth year of its 
implementation.
  It needs to be fixed, and Congress needs to act to fix it. Republican 
Senators and Members of the House have already offered legislation that 
will begin to do that, which I will talk about in a minute. But my 
purpose in coming to the floor is to talk about the waiver requests the 
Secretary of Education may begin to approve. My request of the 
Secretary and of the President is that as they establish a waiver 
process and as they begin to approve waivers, they show restraint and 
not take unto themselves responsibilities that are the responsibilities 
of Congress.
  The truth is, the Secretary has the States over a barrel. We have 
about 100,000 public schools in America, and as he has correctly said, 
about 80 percent of them, under the current law,

[[Page S5875]]

are going to be deemed as failing schools soon.
  The President and the Secretary and we Republicans would like to take 
the responsibility for determining which schools are succeeding or 
failing and put that back in the hands of the States. We would like to 
take the responsibility for determining which teachers are highly 
qualified and put that back in the hands of the States. That is a part 
of the legislation we introduced last week.
  Substantially, those ideas are ideas the President and the Secretary 
either have advanced or agree with. So we have a lot of agreement about 
this. But the Secretary has the States over a barrel. Most Governors 
want a waiver. Almost every State, from Missouri to Tennessee to 
Georgia, will be asking for a waiver.
  What I hope the Secretary will do is to look at the applications, and 
if those applications submitted by the States for exemption from the 
requirements of No Child Left Behind, if they would enhance student 
achievement, then approve them. If they would not advance student 
achievement, then deny them.
  But the restraint I am asking for is that the Secretary not use this 
occasion, when the States are over a barrel, to become a national 
school board and begin to impose on the States those requirements that 
Congress would not do through legislation and that States ought to be 
deciding for themselves. This is the request of the States themselves.
  The States have been working over the last 10 years in very good ways 
to take steps forward together. They have created common standards. 
They have created tests to measure performance against those standards. 
The chief State school officers are in the middle of creating an 
accountability system. A lot of progress has been made in what I like 
to call the holy grail of elementary and secondary education: finding a 
way to reward outstanding teaching by connecting it to student 
achievement. This is something Tennessee became the first State in the 
country to do when I was Governor in 1983 and 1984 and which many 
school districts in many States are trying to do now.
  So the difference of opinion I have, potentially, with this Secretary 
and this President on what to do about No Child Left Behind may seem 
very small. Let me compliment the President and let me compliment the 
Secretary in this way. They stuck their necks out and have taken some 
positions to help make better schools that are not popular with their 
natural constituents.
  I admire that. I respect that. They have advocated a number of 
changes in the schools; for example, getting rid of the adequate yearly 
progress provision, moving out of Washington the responsibility for 
deciding whether schools are succeeding or failing; changing the highly 
qualified teacher provision so States can figure that out through their 
own systems.
  All those are things we agree on, Republicans and Democrats. Where we 
may disagree, and the reason we have not advanced ahead with bipartisan 
legislation on No Child Left Behind, is what I would call the 
difference between Washington mandates and approving State requests or 
one might even say, the difference between a national school board and 
giving States the responsibility for making their own decisions.
  Here is an example of what I mean. There is agreement, as I said, 
that this process called adequate yearly progress for a lot of schools 
should not be decided here. We will read in the paper that such and 
such school is not succeeding or it is failing. It is a good idea for 
Tennessee or for Missouri or for California to set performance targets 
to replace adequate yearly progress. But those performance targets 
ought to be in the States' application and not be required and defined 
by the U.S. Department of Education in Washington, which could turn it 
into a national school board.
  A growth model, the idea of giving States and school districts credit 
for making progress, sort of an A for effort, to go along with an A for 
achievement, that is a good idea. President Bush, in his 
administration, began to permit that exemption from No Child Left 
Behind.
  But superintendents ought not to be flying to Washington from 
Nashville and Denver and different parts of America and asking anybody 
in Washington to approve their growth model or even be required to have 
one if they have some other way to decide whether schools are 
succeeding or failing.
  Let me take another example that I have a very deep interest in. 
Teacher and principal evaluation systems related to student 
achievement. Tennessee became the first State in 1984 to pay teachers 
more for teaching well. Up until then, not one State paid teachers one 
penny more for teaching well. In my office this morning were the two 
Principals of the Year from Tennessee and three representatives of the 
Tennessee Education Association. Four out of the five were voluntary 
participants in our Master Teacher Program or Career Ladder Program and 
were telling me how grateful they were for that.
  But let me tell you this, it was a controversial and difficult 
effort. It was opposed massively by the National Education Association, 
whose members this morning were thanking me for the program, because it 
is not easy to determine, in a fair way, how to reward outstanding 
teaching, particularly if we are going to relate it to student 
achievement and particularly if we are going to relate it to 
performance pay.
  The best way to do that is to encourage States and encourage school 
districts to try different ways of doing it and hope they succeed and 
borrow ideas from one another. This is what the Teacher Incentive Fund 
has done for the last few years as a part of No Child Left Behind. I 
fully support that program and hope we will continue giving money to 
help school districts who want to try different forms of performance-
based pay.
  But to require a student-teacher evaluation in order to get a waiver 
from No Child Left Behind runs the risk of school districts all over 
the country--100,000 schools--being supervised by a national school 
board.
  I have had very good conversations with well-meaning superintendents 
and others in school districts who say: But Congress has to make us do 
it or we will not do it. I do not buy that. I do not think you can make 
schools better from Washington, DC. We can create an environment in 
which they might succeed. Schools are similar to jobs. We have a 
national responsibility for them, but we cannot create them here. We 
can create an environment to make it easier and cheaper to create jobs, 
private sector jobs. We can create an environment to make it easier to 
create better schools.
  Then, the next thing someone would say is: There is no harm in just 
saying in a Federal law or in a requirement for a waiver that we must 
have a growth model or we must have a performance standard or we must 
have a teacher-principal evaluation program. What is wrong with that?
  Here is what is wrong with it. That is not the end of it. Because 
there is the habit then, every time I have seen it--one time when we 
passed a law saying the Secretary of Education could not do it, of 
creating regulations to interpret what the Federal Government means by 
growth models, performance standards or teacher-principal evaluation 
systems, a lot of well-meaning staff members and other people and peer 
review groups then decided what a teacher-principal evaluation system 
related to student achievement looks like. That is going to be very 
hard to do since nobody knows what it looks like. That would be akin to 
telling people--requiring them to drive cars before the car was 
invented.
  We have had several good experiments around the country that are 
identifying good teaching, rewarding performance, relating it to 
student achievement and relating it to better pay. But it has been very 
hard to do. No one is absolutely sure how to do it.
  The worst thing we could do at this time with teacher and principal 
evaluations related to student achievement, even though I believe it is 
the holy grail of school reform, is to impose any version of it from 
Washington.
  I am simply asking the President and the Secretary to show restraint 
tomorrow. I have a lot of admiration for this Secretary and respect for 
the President's positions on kindergarten through the 12th grade 
education. Many of the ideas in the legislation advanced by Republican 
Senators last

[[Page S5876]]

week to fix No Child Left Behind were suggested by Secretary Duncan. He 
has gone out of his way to work with Republicans, as well as Democrats. 
He has been an energetic, able Secretary, and I support most of his 
ideas.
  For example, he supported the idea--we agreed to it, Democrats and 
Republicans, Senate and House--that instead of reauthorizing this big 
law, we would fix it. Then we identified nine areas we tried to fix. 
The Secretary was comfortable with that, and so were Democratic 
colleagues and Republican Senators. We set a new, realistic, 
challenging goal to help all students succeed. We agree on that: 
Instead of a goal that would require 80 percent schools to be labeled 
as failing, we will have a new goal that says students will be college 
and career ready when they graduate from high school.
  We agreed we should free 95 percent of schools from the Federal 
requirement of conforming to a federally defined adequate yearly 
progress mandate. What that simply means is, instead of Washington 
deciding whether a school in Nashville is succeeding or failing, that 
decision will be made by the State of Tennessee. The State of Tennessee 
will be able to do it a lot better today than it could in 2001, because 
since then we have had common standards adopted by 44 States--tests of 
those standards adopted by about the same number. We have chief state 
school officers agreeing on the principles of accountability systems--
these are the performance targets, growth models, and other such 
things. In the case of Tennessee, they won the Race to the Top 
competition, which I also support.
  The third thing is that the Federal Government will help States fix 
the bottom 5 percent of their schools--that is 4,500 schools picked by 
the States. The Secretary agrees with that, and we Republicans agree, 
and I believe our Democratic colleagues agree.
  We agree on requiring States to have high standards that promote 
college and career readiness for all students. We agree on encouraging 
the creation of State and school district teacher and principal 
evaluation systems to replace Federal highly qualified teacher 
requirements. But for us that means allowing States--if they choose to 
do it--to use title II money to pay for it. We are not going to require 
it or define it. We are going to let it flourish.
  We believe in continuing the necessary reporting requirements. This 
may be the greatest contribution of No Child Left Behind since 2002. It 
requires reports on how schools are doing by subgroup, not on the 
average. So we can find out if African-American children or Hispanic 
children are doing as well as other children. We have this great volume 
of information now from school districts all over the State, so that we 
have, in effect, better report cards.
  We believe on the Republican side--and I think there is agreement, in 
principle, at least, on the Democratic side--that we should allow 
school districts to transfer Federal funds more easily to meet their 
needs and to consolidate Federal programs.
  We believe in empowering parents. In my office this morning, one of 
the State Principals of the Year from Tennessee was from Powell Middle 
School in Knoxville. Their enrollment is up this year, from 920 to 
1,060, because parents were choosing to take their children out of 
schools that weren't succeeding, and they were permitted to transfer 
them to another school--in this case, the Powell Middle School, where 
they could succeed.
  That is my request of a Secretary I admire and a President whose K-12 
education policies I respect: Please show restraint. Just because you 
have every State over a barrel, doesn't mean you should be tempted to 
use this opportunity to become a national school board. Step back, look 
at the applications for waivers. If they enhance student achievement, 
say yes; if they don't, say no.
  Then one last point. Someone might say, and they'd be exactly right, 
that the real reason the Secretary is granting waivers is because 
Congress hasn't done its job. We're in our ninth year of No Child Left 
Behind and we should have fixed it 4 years ago when the law expired. It 
has just continued, according to the provisions of the original law. We 
have substantial agreement in the Senate, except for these 
accountability provisions, these differences over whether we are 
creating a national school board. We should come to a conclusion about 
this. We should get a result. We shouldn't create a situation where 
every Governor has to come to Washington to get a waiver from standards 
that don't work anymore. That is our job. The Secretary has the power 
to grant waivers, but he should do it in a limited way and Congress 
should get to work fixing No Child Left Behind so there is no need for 
waivers. I call on our Democratic colleagues, with whom we have met 
dozens of times, to redouble our joint effort to get a result.
  This is not a case where we don't want President Obama to succeed, as 
some have suggested. We want him to succeed, because if the President 
succeeds on K-12 education, the country succeeds. We substantially 
agree on how we need to fix No Child Left Behind. We still have a few 
differences of opinion. The Secretary's regulatory action should not do 
what the Congress ought to be doing. I respectfully suggest that he 
should show restraint and we should get to work.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Disaster Relief

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, we find ourselves in a peculiar 
condition. We must have the people across this country scratching their 
heads and wondering: What are those guys doing? We know the American 
people do not think much of us as it is, but they are surely going to 
think less of us when they see what is happening.
  We have a tradition in our country that when disaster strikes, we 
respond. Americans pull together and help each other. We saw that 
happening in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene, which devastated New 
Jersey and other States along the east coast, and other natural 
disasters hitting our country across its breadth--forest fires in one 
State, water shortages in another, and other problems in others. There 
isn't a State in this country that hasn't felt the wrath of a storm or 
the difficulty that nature presents. But the one thing we don't see is 
the spirit of cooperation. It certainly doesn't extend to some of our 
colleagues.
  I look at the House disaster relief proposal, and one thing is for 
sure: It is totally inadequate. Madam President, this is an emergency, 
and it is just plain heartless for our colleagues to turn their backs 
on families who are struggling to rebuild their shattered lives. I 
don't know what they are thinking because we know difficulties have 
struck all 50 of our States at one time or another, a lot fairly 
recently. Yet these people are saying: No, we are not going to give you 
enough money to deal with the emergencies that we have.
  I hope the people who are in their districts or in their States look 
at their representatives and say: Hey, wait a second. We have problems 
here. And these people who are so negatively disposed are raising havoc 
within the families of their own States or their own districts. They 
are just turning their backs on them.
  The early estimates suggest that Hurricane Irene could become 1 of 
the 10 costliest storms in American history, with damages that could 
exceed $10 billion. This violent storm produced some of the worst 
flooding in a century, destroying homes and displacing countless 
families.
  In my State of New Jersey alone, 11 lives were lost, people were 
turned out of their houses. In many cases, as I saw them--as President 
Obama saw them when he came to my State--they can't go back to those 
houses. They certainly, for the most part--those who had to evacuate 
their homes and put their furniture out on the front lawn--their 
furniture is unusable even if they can get in their houses. So life has 
a grim picture for these people.

[[Page S5877]]

  The President came to New Jersey to see for himself the destruction 
that Hurricane Irene caused. I joined him on a tour of the city of 
Paterson, NJ. It is my hometown. I was born there. It was one of the 
cities hardest hit by flooding. We have a picture. It has lots of 
pretty colors, but it is a disastrous portrayal--water all over the 
place, a bridge just about underwater. We witnessed unforgettable 
images--streets and sidewalks covered in mud, and in some houses the 
second floors were covered in mud as well.
  But Paterson is not alone. This picture shows the damage in Bound 
Brook, NJ. Here we see, again, flooded roadways. By the way, my State 
of New Jersey happens to be the most densely populated State in the 
country. We have 9 million people living in a very small area. So when 
something like this hits, it hits a lot of people in a hurry.
  In Cranford, NJ, this material we see here you might call trash, but 
the people who lived here didn't call it trash. These were their 
possessions. These were the things their kids slept on night after 
night, or tables they ate from every day. Trash. These people across 
the Capitol--people on the other side in the House of Representatives--
they say: Oh, too bad. First of all, we will have to go find the money 
if we are going to do anything; and, secondly, we are just not going to 
give enough money to deal with the problem.
  We have a city called Boonton, NJ. People are unable to get what they 
need. There was a bridge there before. It is gone. How do they get 
across town? Well, maybe they just don't.
  With Hurricane Irene we witnessed nature's power to destroy, and now 
it is time to see the Federal Government step up; get in there to 
repair, rebuild, restore, and give people encouragement. When the 
President of the United States stood before the people in New Jersey, I 
saw them weep when they held his hand. They wept not because it was a 
sad picture for the President, but because it was a sad picture for 
their lives. They are thinking about their own kids and their own 
lives, and seeing the President was a sign of relief. They were 
thinking: The President of the United States is here. He is going to 
make sure we get help in a hurry.
  But our Republican friends on the other side, they say: No hurry. No 
hurry. I hope the people in these States, the people in these 
districts, will record these moments. We will remind them about it.
  Even before this hurricane struck, FEMA's primary source of funding 
for cleanup and recovery--the Disaster Relief Fund--was already on life 
support. They didn't have enough money to do their job. The fund was 
depleted by recent tornadoes, flooding that wreaked havoc across the 
Midwest and South, and wildfires that ranged across the South and the 
West. So here in the Senate we passed a bill, and it wasn't easy.
  A lot of our colleagues stood up to the assignment and said: OK, I 
don't necessarily agree, but I agree conceptually. Therefore, I will 
agree to make $7 billion in funding available to help victims of 
Hurricane Irene as well as victims of the recent tornadoes and 
wildfires. Our bill provides funding to get us through the end of the 
month because the fiscal year ends at the end of September--just a few 
days away--and to support emergency needs when the next fiscal year 
begins in October.
  Last week, 10 Republicans had the guts to stand up and say: I don't 
care that it is the Democrats who are proposing this; I care about the 
people it is going to serve. They stood up and voted with us. It took 
courage. They stood up for their constituents and people across the 
country who are trying to rebuild their lives. This was a courageous 
vote for them, and it shows there is bipartisan support for the Senate 
disaster relief bill.
  In contrast, the House Republicans couldn't even get enough support 
from their own party to pass their measly proposal last night. It is 
time for them to embrace the Senate plan on disaster relief and stop 
using disaster victims as political pawns.
  Who are they going to hurt? Are they going to hurt President Obama? 
Are they going to hurt Democrats who are in office? No. The pain goes 
to the ordinary people who work for a living and take care of their 
families and those proud Americans serving in our military. Those are 
the people to whom they are saying no.
  It is too bad. It is too bad. A lot of these people are veterans and 
have come back from dangerous duty. They go home, their unemployment 
rate is high, and very often they are rebuilding their lives. If they 
have a home, a domicile, in these areas, they say we can't help them.
  The House Republicans' halfhearted approach offers little more than 
$3\1/2\ billion in disaster relief. That sounds like a lot of money, 
but it is not even close to being enough. It is going to leave our 
residents, our States, our cities and towns out in the cold at a time 
when they desperately need help.
  In addition to shortchanging FEMA, the House provides zero funding 
for many of the programs that are needed to help us recover. Our Senate 
bill includes funding for the community development block grants--a 
very important program. It gives communities money and the latitude to 
deal with the problems that face them. It provides our communities with 
long-term support and Economic Development Administration grants to 
help businesses grow again--to hire people and to produce product. It 
also includes funding for the Department of Agriculture to help farmers 
and residents in rural areas to recover. It is the kind of help we 
offered in 2008 and 2010 when hurricanes and heavy rains caused 
destruction in States such as Texas and Kentucky, Tennessee and 
Indiana, and it is what we have to do again.
  The House Republicans failed to provide funding for farmers, economic 
development, or long-term support for local communities to rebuild. 
That is what you do when you have a crisis or a natural disaster, and 
there can't be any debate about the help that is required in all 50 
States. It requires bipartisan support because we can't get it done 
with only one party.
  Every State has experienced a disaster in recent years. This year 
alone, Federal disasters have been declared in 48 States. FEMA is 
working in every one of those States to help communities rebuild and 
recover--if they have the resources. If they don't, they will not be on 
the job and people will continue to suffer. So if the House Republicans 
get their way, every State is on the verge of disaster.
  Incredibly, the House proposal pays for disaster relief by taking 
money from advanced technological development that will help our 
automobile industry, for instance, and create jobs. In the Senate, we 
have to reject this misguided approach. We have to say no way. We are 
not going to rob Peter to pay Paul. They simply want to rob Peter and 
Paul--that is what they want to do--of assistance and help.
  We should ask why it was acceptable to provide more than $800 million 
to invade and then rebuild Iraq without paying for it, no questions 
asked. Ask the families who made sacrifices in that war how they felt 
about it. We turn our back on it. That is what we have done. But when 
the time comes to rebuild America, some Republicans want to hold the 
money hostage until painful spending cuts are inflicted elsewhere.
  They are gunning for the President of the United States. They think 
they are going to be able to smash President Obama's accomplishments: 
getting a couple million people to work, the packages that got the 
decline stopped where it was and started to turn around.
  We have to remember something. I was once the senior Democratic 
member on the Budget Committee, so I know about balancing budgets. But 
when these reckless tax cuts came up for the wealthy and cost $700 
billion over 10 years, they were approved without being paid for. It is 
pretty clear, when it comes to giving big tax breaks to millionaires 
and billionaires, the wealthy among us--and I say this without meaning 
to boast. I ran a very good company, a company I helped start with two 
other fellows that now employs 45,000 people, where there were three of 
us, and I, with my education being paid for by the government because I 
served in the Army for 3 years and I got the G.I. bill.
  So I will tell you this--and I will tell this to all my colleagues 
and I hope they hear me. I think it is time for people like me who have 
made money to pay something back, to give strength to our country, and 
not argue about whether they pay enough tax. They

[[Page S5878]]

don't pay enough tax. Warren Buffet says they don't pay enough. They 
listen to him, that they don't pay enough tax. It doesn't hurt those of 
us who have been successful the least bit to pay a few more percent in 
taxes. We can feel good about it. Look in the mirror after we have put 
something in of value that our country needs, that strengthens the 
working class of people that tells them: Listen, we have gotten our 
share, and now it is our responsibility to give back some part of that 
share.
  It is pretty clear; when it comes to giving big tax breaks to 
millionaires and billionaires, the Republicans don't give a second 
thought as to how much they cost. But to our country's disaster 
victims, they have to go to the back of the line and wait their turn.
  When disaster strikes, victims don't want us to reach for the budget 
ax. They want us to extend that helping hand that gets their lives back 
started again. The fact is, disaster victims have enough to worry 
about. In many years, people's lives have seen moments of jeopardy and 
difficulty, and they fully gave what they had to help their country, 
feeling all the time that the government is going to stand behind them.
  That is what this country of ours is about, this democracy. The 
Constitution demands that we improve the lives of our citizens; that we 
give them rights, we give them support, we give them a view of life.
  House Republicans want to turn their backs on storm victims. A lot of 
them are new here. They ought to enjoy these terms because they may not 
have another one when the public finds out what they are doing, turning 
their backs on storm victims, local communities, regional economies, 
and farmers. Their proposal will cost us jobs, and I hope their jobs 
will be included in it when it comes time next year to vote.
  I appeal to my Republican colleagues, stand--stand for those who live 
in your States, including our neighbors, including the States' 
children, including the States' families. Remember this, Republican 
Senators, Republican House Members. We represent people across 
political lines, across religious lines, across all different lines, 
and our obligation is to take care of those people when they need help; 
to give them some support, to give them some hope, to give them some 
vision.
  That is what we are supposed to be doing. We are supposed to be 
encouraging our citizens, our constituents, and not simply turning our 
back. What we ought to have is a camera in here that shows every time 
people vote no on issues and make sure it is clearly understood when 
people turn their backs on their fellow citizens.
  We face serious fiscal challenges in our country, but we cannot put a 
price on human life. Nothing--nothing is more important than keeping 
our communities, our families, and our economy safe.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 651

  Under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment No. 651, 
offered by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio. There will be 2 minutes 
of debate equally divided prior to the vote.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I will be brief.
  The amendment is simple and straightforward. It just returns the TAA 
Program back to its original intent. It was designed to help workers 
who were displaced from their jobs or lost their jobs as a result of 
trade practices, primarily as a result of free-trade agreements between 
the United States and other countries. It is one of the reasons why, I 
believe, the majority has brought this issue before us before 
proceeding to the free-trade agreements with South Korea, with Panama, 
and with Colombia. What this does is it returns it back to that. It 
clearly recognizes there are workers who have been hurt by unfair trade 
practices unrelated to trade agreements, whether it is what China does 
or other nations do, and those things need to be dealt with, but they 
need to be dealt with separately.
  This program was originally designed to help workers who were harmed 
in the short term. That is why it is called adjustment. These are 
workers who are trying to adjust as a result of some disruptions that 
may have occurred as a result of a trade agreement.
  I think what we can take solace in knowing is that the best thing you 
can do for a worker who has lost his job is to get him a job. 
Ultimately, that is what free-trade agreements do. They create jobs in 
America, as the White House has recognized.
  My hope is that we will proceed quickly to the passage of the three 
free-trade agreements, and again I urge the White House to submit those 
and that this body take them up as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, the conflict here with regard to the 
amendment that has been proposed is that on our side of this debate, we 
think this should be a broad array of help for workers. If a worker 
loses his or her job and we can provide eligibility for trade 
adjustment assistance, we shouldn't limit that just to the 17 countries 
with which we have a trade agreement.
  Say if we have a problem with massive job loss as a result of what 
China is doing, either because they are cheating on currency or not 
playing by the rules--as we know they have not in many instances. I 
have a table here that indicates that in fiscal year 2012, when you 
look at the estimated number of workers certified under trade 
adjustment, whether they are import-related certifications or whether 
they are all other certifications, you add it up and there are more 
than 287,000 people who are impacted. A lot of those are impacted by 
way of unfair trade from China.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CASEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the 
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. 
Enzi).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Barrasso
     Corker
     Enzi
     Paul
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 34, the nays 62. 
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is rejected.

[[Page S5879]]

                           Amendment No. 650

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 650, offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. 
Thune. There will be 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, my amendment simply requires a study by 
the International Trade Commission when a trade agreement has been 
signed but the implementing legislation has not been taken up by 
Congress within 2 years. The study will examine the impact of lost 
export opportunities, the impact on U.S. jobs, and the impact on and 
the protection of U.S. intellectual property resulting from the delay.
  Today we have anecdotal evidence, but there isn't a comprehensive 
government report on what delay means for U.S. businesses in our 
economy. I wish we did not need this amendment, but we have seen with 
the Korea, with the Colombia, and with the Panama agreements we cannot 
assume an agreement will be implemented swiftly after it is signed.
  This amendment is not about casting blame. The study will apply to 
trade agreements whether negotiated by a Democratic or a Republican 
President. It is not about the past. It is just the fact that Congress 
deserves better information about the impact when we delay these trade 
agreements. This does not affect TAA, it does not affect the underlying 
bill, and it does not affect passage in the House. It is a commonsense 
amendment.
  I hope my colleagues will support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Our 
exporters face major challenges in global markets. We are faced with 
surging imports from China. China has a regime in place that is 
cheating American innovators and forcing them to share their 
intellectual property.
  Instead of dedicating the scarce resources of the International Trade 
Commission to look into these issues and to identify other foreign 
trade barriers that impede our exporters, we would essentially task the 
International Trade Commission to tell us what we already know.
  For example, we know that in the case of the pending agreements, we 
had an opportunity to get a better deal for our companies that export 
automobiles and to promote human rights in Colombia by reducing 
violence.
  We are on the precipice of considering these agreements. Let's not 
turn back the clock. Instead of using scarce resources to have an 
armchair debate about what we already know, let's dedicate the 
resources of this agency to help workers and businesses.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), 
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Barrasso
     Corker
     Enzi
     Paul
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 
52. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 634

  There is now 10 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 634 offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition 
to the Cornyn amendment that would force the administration to sell new 
F-16s to Taiwan.
  Yesterday, the administration announced details of a $5.8 billion 
arms package to Taiwan.
  The central element of this package is the decision to support a 
substantial upgrade to Taiwan's existing fleet of 145 F-16 A/Bs.
  The upgrades include state-of-the-art avionics and weaponry such as 
targeting systems, AIM-9X air-to-air missiles and precision guided 
munitions.
  The deal also includes the active electronically scanned array radars 
that, according to Taiwan's Defense Ministry, will allow its planes to 
detect China's new J-20 stealth aircraft.
  The package also includes pilot training and spare parts for Taiwan's 
F-5 jets and C-130 transport planes.
  It will significantly improve Taiwan's self-defense capabilities 
without increasing cross-strait tensions.
  As we all know, Taiwan has asked the administration to accept a 
letter of request to sell 66 of the newer F-16 C/Ds.
  Those who support the sale of new F-16s to Taiwan were clearly 
disappointed by the decision to move forward with only upgrades to 
Taiwan's existing fleet.
  Senator Cornyn described the decision as a ``capitulation to 
Communist China'' and a ``slap in the face to strong ally and longtime 
friend.''
  Nothing could be further from the truth.
  First, let's be clear: The administration has deferred the decision 
on the sale of new F-16s to Taiwan, it has not rejected it outright.
  It has acted in a manner consistent with the previous administration 
that also refused to accept Taiwan's request for new F-16s.
  Let me remind my colleagues that under the Obama administration, 
total arms sales to Taiwan have totaled $12.25 billion, more than 
double the amount sold during President George W. Bush's first term.
  It is clear these attacks are more about politics than the security 
and self-defense capability of Taiwan.
  Next, let's look at the arms sales package itself.
  The decision to upgrade Taiwan's existing fleet of F-16 A/Bs will 
provide many of the same capabilities as the new F-16 C/Ds.
  According to the Pentagon, with a robust retrofit the F-16 A/B and F-
16 C/D are comparable aircrafts. The upgraded F-16 A/Bs will have 
active electronically scanned array, AESA, radars, equal to the new F-
16s; embedded global positioning system inertial navigation systems, 
equal to the new F-16s; ALQ-213 warfare management systems, equal to 
the new F-16s; night vision goggles, equal to the new F-16s; AIM-9X 
Sidewinder missiles, equal to the new F-16s; sensor fused weapons and 
laser guided bombs, equal to the new F-16s.
  And the list goes on.
  According to Mark Stokes of the Project 2049 Institute and a former 
Pentagon China expert, the radar ``offers a significant capability that 
would be able to maintain Taiwan's qualitative advantage'' over China.
  Michael Pillsbury, a current Pentagon consultant on China, argued 
that the A/B upgrades could be perceived as

[[Page S5880]]

providing Taiwan with more capabilities than the C/Ds.
  Supporters of this amendment will argue in favor of both upgrades and 
new planes, as requested by Taiwan.
  Allow me to repeat: The administration has not formally rejected the 
sale of new F-16s. It is still under active consideration.
  Clearly, the decision to upgrade the F-16 A/Bs does not prevent the 
administration from later selling Taiwan the newer planes.
  Regardless of timing, we have to consider carefully what impact the 
sale of new F-16s to Taiwan would have on cross-straits relations.
  In May 2010, I had the pleasure of visiting China and Taiwan for a 
series of meetings with Senators Mark Udall and Kay Hagan.
  We had full and rewarding discussions on a range of issues, including 
cybersecurity, energy, trade, and cross-strait relations.
  One bright story in the region, I believe, is that of Taiwan and its 
relationship with the mainland.
  The reports we received on our visit were encouraging.
  The three direct lines--air service, sea service and postal service--
are all in place.
  The number of flights between Beijing and Taiwan has reached 270 per 
week, and I understand they are packed to the brim.
  There is also substantial Taiwanese in China today.
  Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou told us he was thrilled that 
negotiations were successful on an Economic Framework Agreement, known 
as ECFA, which he subsequently signed and was ratified by Taiwan's 
legislature.
  On the 1-year anniversary of its passage, Taiwanese officials 
announced that agricultural exports to China covered by the agreement 
jumped 262 percent--to $69.31 million--in the first 7 months of 2011 
compared to the same period in 2010.
  Overall, Taiwanese exports to the mainland in the first half of 2011 
totaled $61.56 billion, up 10.53 percent from the year before.
  Follow-on talks have recently begun between both sides which will 
focus on the trade in goods and services and dispute resolution.
  With the momentum generated by the agreement, I believe China and 
Taiwan should begin to address the security situation across the 
strait.
  It is my strong belief that China should begin to reduce its more 
than 1,000 ballistic missiles deployed along its coast.
  I deeply believe that enhanced economic cooperation and constructive 
dialogue will move China and Taiwan away from military confrontation to 
a clear path of resolving differences diplomatically.
  In my view, the arms sales package for Taiwan announced by the 
administration will improve Taiwan's self-defense capabilities and 
still enhance this ongoing cooperation and dialogue.
  Selling the new F-16's to Taiwan would only serve to undermine the 
progress we have made with China this year.
  Military escalation between Taiwan and China, which the sale of the 
F-16 C/D variant would be construed as, is not in the best interests of 
the United States.
  Finally, let me discuss how this amendment is being proposed.
  Simply put, a trade bill to renew the Generalized System of 
Preferences and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is not the 
proper vehicle for a sensitive foreign policy debate.
  The administration and most of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle have made it clear that we must renew trade adjustment assistance 
before we consider the trade agreements.
  If this amendment passes, it will threaten the chances of passing 
trade adjustment assistance in the House and, ultimately, consideration 
of the three outstanding free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama 
and Colombia.
  If we are to have this debate, it should be during consideration of 
the Defense authorization bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Cornyn amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the amendment 
offered by Senator Cornyn regarding the sale of F-16C/D fighter 
aircraft to Taiwan.
  Let me begin by reiterating that I am a strong supporter of Taiwan's 
right to self-defense. That is why I am proud to support the proposed 
arms sale package to Taiwan that the Obama administration transmitted 
to Congress just yesterday.
  This package would provide an estimated $5.85 billion in arms sales 
to Taiwan, including a significant advanced technology upgrade to 145 
F-16A/B aircraft that are currently part of Taiwan's air defense fleet.
  But what I cannot support is the process by which Senator Cornyn is 
seeking to require the sale of additional F-16C/D aircraft to Taiwan.
  Instead of mandating this sale on a trade adjustment bill, I would 
like Congress to continue to work with the Obama administration to 
determine how to best meet our obligations under the Taiwan Relations 
Act to ``make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense 
services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to 
maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.''
  A defeat of the Cornyn amendment does not take the potential sale of 
F-16C/D aircraft to Taiwan off the table. In fact, the administration 
has stated that it is still considering the possibility of F-16C/D 
sales to Taiwan.
  I am confident that the United States will continue to help ensure 
Taiwan's security and stability long into the 21st century.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would like to offer a bipartisan proposition to my 
colleagues here in the nature of this amendment. The reason I say this 
idea enjoys bipartisan support is 47 Senators, Democrats and 
Republicans, have joined in a letter to the administration asking that 
the administration grant a sale of F-16C/D models to our ally Taiwan.
  This amendment would compel that sale because unfortunately the 
administration declined to make that sale yesterday, notwithstanding 
the fact that the Taiwan Relations Act signed by Jimmy Carter and 
passed by a bipartisan Congress requires the United States to provide 
Taiwan with defense articles necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain 
sufficient self-defense capabilities.
  They have lost that capability, as demonstrated by this chart taken 
from Defense Department records. Currently, the People's Republic of 
China has about 2,300 operational combat aircraft to Taiwan's 490. 
Taiwan, by comparison, has 490 operational aircraft, of which about 100 
need to be retired, French Mirage aircraft, F-5 aircraft. About 100 of 
them need to be retired because they are literally obsolete.
  What this amendment would do would be to compel the sale of 66 F-16C/
D models to our friends in Taiwan. Why is this important? Well, the 
Department of Defense reports that China's military power is in an 
increasingly precarious situation for the region and that China seeks 
the capability both to deter Taiwan independence and influence Taiwan 
to settle the dispute between them on China's terms.
  This amendment would compel that sale. My colleague from 
Massachusetts argued earlier that the retrofit of 145 of the F-16A/B 
models, which Taiwan has, which the United States sold, is an adequate 
substitute. It is not. All that will do is help upgrade 145 of these 
aircraft that I identified earlier. It will not meet the need created 
by the retirement of the obsolete French Mirages and the F-5.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think all of us agree with the intent and 
the direction the Senator from Texas wants to go here with respect to 
our friendship and our support of Taiwan. In the 26 years I have been 
here, I have never not supported doing what is necessary to live up to 
the Taiwan Relations Act. But the Senator is reaching way beyond what 
we have ever done in the Senate, which is to compel a single weapons 
systems sale by the President with respect to a complex relationship 
such as China-Taiwan and the entire presence of the United States in 
the areas of the straits and in that region. We have never done that.
  Moreover, the President of Taiwan has said it is entirely adequate. 
He feels they will have the defensive capacity necessary under the TRA 
in

[[Page S5881]]

order to be able to defend themselves at the current level with the 
upgrade we are providing.
  Let me point out that under President Bush, over 8 years, we provided 
$12 billion to Taiwan--over 8 years. In 3 years of the Obama 
administration, he has provided about $12 billion--3 years. So there 
was $15 billion by Bush over 8 years, $12 billion by Obama over 3 
years.
  The upgrade that is being provided--$6 billion worth of upgrade, 
sales of weapons--includes state-of-the-art avionics and weaponry, 
including the Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars, targeting 
systems, Aim-9X air-to-air missiles, and precision-guided munitions. 
Those airplanes, those 145 F-16s, will have state-of-the-art capacity 
at the highest level of any F-16 that we are allowed to sell to any 
country in the world.
  Moreover, the administration has made it absolutely clear that this 
does not preclude the sale of F-16s maybe in the next months, maybe in 
the next year, but that ought to be done by any administration, 
Republican or Democratic, in an orderly way as a matter of good arms 
policy and as a matter of good foreign policy. In addition to that, the 
administration is unalterably opposed to this.
  So here we are working hard under a fairly careful script to get TAA 
out of here so we can move to three trade agreements that a lot of us 
want to move and pass, which means jobs for America. They have been 
long overdue. We pass this amendment, we lose that opportunity. It is 
that simple.
  So these are all tradeoffs, but this is a tradeoff measured against 
the lack of any need for urgency as a matter of defense policy and 
foreign policy to do this. So I say to my colleagues, why, for the 
first time, without that showing of urgency and need, particularly 
given the President of Taiwan's own statements, are we going to for the 
first time compel a President to do something he does not think he 
wants to do in the context of the relationship with both China and 
Taiwan?
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, under article I, 
section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is given the power to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is why this amendment is 
relevant to this trade bill we are getting ready to pass, because it is 
important that products manufactured in the United States, and produce 
grown here, that we sell it to markets abroad because it creates jobs 
here at home, in addition to fulfilling our legal obligation under the 
Taiwan Relations Act.
  I must say I disagree with my colleague from Massachusetts. The 
upgrade on the 145 aircraft does nothing to substitute for the retiring 
of the French Mirage aircraft and the F-5s, given the disparity of air 
power between China and Taiwan.
  Because we are all concerned about jobs, let me remind my colleagues 
that 32 different States will receive benefits by way of jobs as a 
result of these sales. This isn't the primary reason why this is 
important. This is about American prestige, keeping our promises, and 
not letting the bullies of the world, including China, intimidate the 
United States; and it is about keeping solemn commitments to our 
allies.
  I ask my colleagues to vote yes, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 24 seconds.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me say, very quickly, that the sale of weapons 
measured against the policy decisions in a set of relationships that 
are critical to the balance of power and the threat and danger and so 
forth has never been translated into a jobs program. If you want it to 
be--$6 billion spent on these upgrades--Northrop Grumman, Lockheed 
Martin, and a host of companies will benefit from that $6 billion and 
may benefit from the sale of weapons down the road.
  This is a policy issue. The policy question is whether the President 
of Taiwan can speak for Taiwan as the Senator from Texas speaks for 
Taiwan. It is whether we are going to be adequately meeting the needs 
of the TRA and the foreign policy priorities of an administration that, 
it seems to me, given the statements of the President of Taiwan, not 
only don't violate it but sustain the relationship of the TRA.
  I have proudly voted in support of Taiwan for the entire time I have 
been here, 26 years. I believe I am voting for them today, even as I 
oppose this amendment but support the administration's $6 billion 
program for upgrade and those 145 F-16s--and maybe we will sell them 
some others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has elapsed.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, briefly, once this production line is shut 
down for the production of the F-16, it cannot be reconstituted. The 
2,000 people currently working on the F-16 production line will be 
reassigned or fired and so this is important.
  This isn't something we can take up willy-nilly later on because we 
finally have gotten around to it. It is timely, and it needs to be done 
now to keep our commitment to our ally and show the Chinese what they 
need to see from America; that is, strength, not weakness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), 
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 148 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Barrasso
     Corker
     Enzi
     Paul
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
48. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 633

  Under the previous order, there is now 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, in relation to amendment No. 633 offered by the Senator from 
Nevada (Mr. Reid) on behalf of Mr. Casey.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask an affirmative vote on this 
amendment.
  Trade adjustment assistance is very simple. We have a job crisis in 
the country. This program for decades now has helped people get through 
crises and, very importantly, has allowed them to be trained and 
retrained for the jobs of the future. We need this program, our workers 
need it, and our economy needs it.
  I commend the work of Chairman Baucus and my colleague from Ohio, 
Senator Brown. I ask for an affirmative vote on this amendment.
  My colleague from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus and Senator 
Casey for their leadership.

[[Page S5882]]

  This is about helping people who have lost their jobs, not only 
through no fault of their own but because of actions taken in this body 
and the House of Representatives on trade agreements and on trade 
policy.
  I met a woman in Youngstown the other day who lost her job in 
manufacturing and she went back to school. She and her daughter are 
both now in nursing school training to be nurses. That is what TAA is 
about.
  Vote for the Casey-Baucus-Brown amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is a caustic program of dubious value. 
In our hearings, the representatives of the administration couldn't 
come up with one job that would be lost as a result of these free-trade 
agreements.
  There is no evidence that TAA works and, in all honesty, there is no 
commitment from the President we are going to have the free-trade 
agreements come up anyway. I have to say that even though we haven't 
done a trade agreement in years, TAA continues to grow and TAA is on 
top of unemployment insurance that we are paying anyway, and it isn't 
justified.
  All I can say is, literally, this program should not be adopted at 
this particular point. And if it is adopted, it ought to be adopted 
based upon reason and so forth.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 633.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), 
and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker) would have voted ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Barrasso
     Corker
     Enzi
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). On this vote, the yeas are 69, 
the nays are 28. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the 
adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the clerk will read the bill for a third 
time.
  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 Senator from Montana is recognized.
  There is now 10 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on 
the passage of the measure.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this bill addresses our country's most 
urgent priority--jobs. It helps American workers acquire the skills 
they need to compete and win in the global economy. It gives American 
businesses better access to the materials they need to make world-class 
products, and that is just the beginning. It also opens the door to an 
ambitious trade agenda, an agenda that will increase U.S. exports, grow 
our economy, and create jobs. That agenda includes our pending free-
trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
  The first step is to renew the trade adjustment assistance. Trade 
adjustment assistance has been an essential part of U.S. trade policy 
for nearly 50 years. When we negotiate trade agreements, we create new 
economic opportunity and spur growth but also increase competition. TAA 
helps American workers and businesses meet that competition with job 
training, income support, health coverage, and technical assistance.
  Over the years we have reformed TAA to keep pace with the changing 
global economy. In 2009 we extended TAA to cover service industry 
workers and workers whose jobs shifted overseas to any country, and we 
increased funding for job training and health care. But the 2009 
reforms expired. They expired last February.
  Congress has never approved one free-trade agreement, much less 
three, with TAA expired. This year must be no exception. This 
legislation will restore the 2009 TAA reforms and responsible program 
cuts to achieve necessary cost savings. This legislation will clear the 
path to consider and approve our free-trade agreements with Colombia, 
Panama, and South Korea.
  If we do not approve this legislation we will impose a roadblock that 
could derail our three free-trade agreements. We cannot afford to fail. 
Weak consumer demand at home threatens to stall our recovery. We need 
these agreements to increase sales of U.S. farm products, manufactured 
goods, and services abroad.
  The International Trade Commission estimates that these agreements 
will boost U.S. exports by $13 billion. Most important, these 
additional exports will increase economic growth and support tens of 
thousands of American jobs. We cannot delay.
  This summer, for example, trade agreements between the European Union 
and Korea, and between Canada and Colombia entered into force. U.S. 
exporters are losing sales to their European and Canadian competitors. 
American jobs are at risk. Let's restore U.S. trade adjustment 
assistance for American workers, let's expand trade preferences for the 
benefit of American manufacturers, and let's move quickly to our 
pending free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will vote in support of the amendment 
to renew and extend both the General System of Preferences and trade 
adjustment assistance. It is the correct approach for Congress to 
extend trade adjustment assistance, TAA, including an extension of the 
2009 bipartisan reforms, before considering the pending trade 
agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama.
  TAA is not a substitute for fighting to keep jobs here in the United 
States. However, given the realities of a global economy we must 
provide a safety net so workers who lose their jobs as a result of 
expanded trade and globalization are able to transition to new jobs 
through retraining and that they have access to affordable health care 
coverage.
  The 2002 TAA law covered only manufacturing workers who lost jobs as 
a result of imports or if those jobs shifted to FTA partner countries. 
In 2009, as part of the Recovery Act, the TAA Program was expanded 
through bipartisan efforts to increase training funding. It also 
expanded eligibility to include the service sector and farmers and to 
cover workers whose jobs were been moved anywhere offshore, not just to 
a FTA partner country. Finally, it expanded access to TAA's health 
coverage tax credit, which helps certified workers purchase private 
health insurance.
  Those 2009 expansions expired on February 13, 2011 and are overdue 
for reauthorization. The bill the Senate is considering today is a 
bipartisan agreement to restore most of the 2009 provisions through 
December 31, 2013. It will also apply the benefits retroactively from 
February 12, 2011.
  There is clearly a need for an expanded TAA Program. Since the 2009 
reforms, almost 450,000 workers have been certified for TAA assistance: 
over 40 percent of whom were certified

[[Page S5883]]

under the expanded provisions and coming from every state in the union. 
As a leading manufacturing state and a significant contributor to 
global trade, Michigan has relied on the TAA Program to retrain workers 
for new careers and certified nearly 50,000 workers since the 2009 
reforms.
  Michigan also houses the Great Lakes Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Center. The Great Lakes TAA Center helps hundreds of firms in Michigan, 
Indiana and Ohio compete in the global economy. The TAA for firms 
program assists mostly small and medium-sized companies that experience 
loss of jobs and sales because of foreign imports. TAA for firms has 
helped to retain or create tens of thousands of jobs by saving 
companies and jobs imperiled by import competition. This TAA extension 
includes $16 million for this important program--TAA for firms.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance programs which for 
decades have served as a critical lifeline for thousands of Mainers 
whose jobs have been adversely affected by increases in foreign imports 
and shifts in production overseas.
  During my entire tenure in Congress, I have worked tirelessly with my 
colleagues to reform and expand TAA programs to assist workers, 
businesses, and communities harmed by trade liberalization in competing 
in an increasingly global marketplace.
  And frankly if there were ever a moment to rebuild and equip our 
workforce to make greater strides when it comes to competing in the 
global economy is there any doubt, that time is now?
  Consider that China will surpass the U.S. economically in 2016--a 
mere five years from now--according to the International Monetary Fund. 
Consider that the total U.S. international trade deficit for 2010 was 
$497 billion, up from $374 billion in 2009. And our trade deficit with 
China increased from $226 billion in 2009 to $273 billion in 2010--a 
20-percent increase in just 1 year alone!
  Whoever is elected President in 2012 will be the last President to 
preside over a U.S. economy on top of China's if we continue with our 
current policies, which, in large part are fueling our decline and 
China's rise. Make no mistake, this is the regrettable direction in 
which we are headed as long as we import more than we export, amass 
soaring deficits, consume more than we produce, and outsource thousands 
of jobs.
  Domestically, our Nation's $14.7 trillion debt is projected to reach 
100 percent of GDP this year; unemployment has been hovering near or 
above 9 percent; and 22 million Americans are either unemployed or 
underemployed. Indeed, we are experiencing the longest unemployment 
period in American history since data collection started in 1948, 
surpassing even the 1982 double-dip recession.
  Manufacturing has also grown at the slowest pace in 2 years. The 
housing downturn is still plaguing the country, with no plausible end 
to foreclosures in sight. Home prices in March fell to their lowest 
level since 2002. Consumers, confronted with higher gas and food 
prices, are spending less on discretionary items.
  And in my home State of Maine wage and salary employment levels have 
fallen precipitously through December 2010, with job losses of 26,900, 
a 4.4-percent drop. Overall, employment numbers in my State have 
returned to year 1999 levels, erasing the economic gains of the past 
decade.
  At a time when Maine and our Nation are struggling to revive our 
lackluster economy--the worst since World War II, renewing and 
reforming TAA represents a central avenue we must take if we are to 
reinvigorate our workforce so that American enterprise is positioned to 
battle for customers with our counterparts in countries like China.
  TAA programs--such as TAA for Workers, TAA for Firms, and TAA for 
Farmers have proved invaluable to accelerating the adjustment process 
and expediting the means by which laid-off workers are able to rejoin 
the workforce and contribute to the bottom-line at a high level.
  TAA is crucial in providing Americans with the skills and assistance 
needed to meet this challenge. As President Kennedy said in 1962, TAA 
is ``a program to afford time for American initiative, American 
adaptability and American resiliency to assert themselves.''
  Under the TAA for Workers Program, eligible beneficiaries in Maine--
such as laid-off pulp and paper manufacturers--participate full-time in 
customized and on-the-job training or pursue coursework at local 
colleges and universities to acquire the skills they need to reenter 
the workforce. As of the end of 2010, thousands of Mainers had been 
certified for TAA and reentered the workforce.
  Additionally, under the TAA for Farmers Program, hundreds of 
blueberry producers and lobstermen in my state, facing increased 
pressure from foreign products, have found the program's technical 
assistance and training extremely useful in retooling their businesses 
to ensure Maine's agriculture industry and fisherman remain among the 
best in the world.
  Likewise, the New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center recently 
reported that 15 Maine companies have taken part in the TAA for Firms 
Program over the last several years. These companies have taken 
advantage of the program to reconfigure their business models, develop 
new strategies, and make other adjustments necessary to remain 
competitive in the international economy--benefiting a combined 1,120 
Mainers employed by these firms.
  However, despite these irrefutable successes, I have no doubt that 
some of my colleagues will argue in favor of allowing TAA to expire. 
And they might argue that we should not be giving ``special treatment'' 
to individuals whose jobs have been affected by trade.
  Allowing this vital program to lapse would amount to a colossal 
missed opportunity not only for American workers but for our economy as 
well. When a Maine saw or paper mill closes and the orders it used to 
handle are filled by a Canadian or Chinese plant, that has a cascading 
affect across not just Maine's forestry industry but shipping 
businesses, our service sector, and the thousands of additional workers 
and rural communities that rely on this industry for their very 
survival.
  The fact is, losing one's job to trade is not equivalent to losing 
one's job because of technological advancements or economic adversity 
and downturn. The difference is that trade liberalization actions--such 
as implementing NAFTA or accepting China into the WTO--are the chosen 
policy of the U.S. Government--a path I would argue has often 
sacrificed manufacturing jobs in order to gain market access for other 
sectors of our economy. Consequently, our government is all the more 
obligated to aid our workers and communities hurt by foreign trade.
  To those who point out that there are inefficiencies associated with 
TAA, I agree that efforts at reform must reduce costs and eliminate 
waste. That is why this bill lowers program expenditures, includes 
cost-cutting provisions from areas such as case management and 
administrative expenses, and grants States greater discretion to manage 
the programs.
  Furthermore, the reforms made in this legislation require new 
performance measures, metrics, and accountability as a precondition for 
receiving training and benefits. In fact, the bill raises the standards 
by which applicants may receive waivers from training program 
requirements--eliminating many of the loopholes that previously could 
have been used to avoid participation in key job skill programs.
  Finally, I am pleased that the legislation before us maintains the 
expanded eligibility for service workers and those displaced by trade 
with non-FTA partners like China and India. And it maintains 
initiatives I have championed such as the health coverage tax credit--
all of which are vital components to helping sustain both workers and 
businesses and enable them to contribute to our economic recovery.
  Along with the enforcement of our existing trade laws, trade 
adjustment assistance must be a central pillar of our Nation's trade 
agenda. On February 8 I sent a letter to the Senate's leadership urging 
that they work with me to secure a long-term reauthorization of TAA so 
that families in Maine and across the U.S. are prepared for new 
employment opportunities. Unfortunately, as so often seems to be the

[[Page S5884]]

case in the Senate, action on this job creation package has been 
delayed for far too long--over 7 months since I sent my letter.
  Congress still has an opportunity to overcome this legislative 
inertia in order to benefit U.S. industries that have been devastated 
by foreign imports. American businesses and their employees are doing 
their part--Congress must do likewise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in opposition to this bill before 
us. It extends the generalized system of preferences program for 2 
years, as amended and, as amended, expands the trade adjustment 
assistance program.
  I want to be clear. I support the underlying bill passed by the House 
that extends the GSP Program. GSP helps American companies compete in 
the global marketplace while helping developing countries grow their 
economies and achieve sustainable economic growth to lift their people 
out of poverty.
  As I have made clear over the past few days, I have serious concerns 
with expanding the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program as it has been 
amended by this bill. We can no longer afford to increase domestic 
spending on programs that have dubious value and unproven results. That 
is what this bill will do.
  I cannot condone this spending, so I will vote no. I offered an 
amendment that would have ended the mystery surrounding the sequencing 
of TAA and the three pending free-trade agreements that have been the 
subject of much intrigue and speculation.
  My amendment would have called off the expansion of TAA until our 
free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea were 
enacted. Everything would move together. Isn't that what this whole 
bargain is supposed to be about?
  Well, that amendment did not pass and the White House still refuses 
to say when they will send up the FTAs for a vote. That does not seem 
right or fair to me. TAA is an unproven and costly and 
counterproductive program.
  I urge my colleagues to also oppose this bill, but should it pass, I 
hope the President finally matches actions with words and sends the 
FTAs up for a vote. I am convinced all three will receive strong 
bipartisan votes. American businesses, farmers, and workers, and our 
friends and allies in Colombia, Panama, and South Korea cannot afford 
any delay.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, has the time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes remain.
  Mr. McCONNELL. After today's vote, the White House has no more 
excuses. The time has come to send the three pending trade agreements 
to Congress. We waited for the chance to pass these trade agreements 
that our economy desperately needs and that even the White House admits 
will create tens of thousands of jobs.
  The White House asks us for a path forward on trade adjustment 
assistance in exchange for sending these deals up to Congress and we 
gave it to them. I cannot say I am happy about that. This is a program 
that I and many Republican Members have serious questions about. Thanks 
to the leadership of two of our Members, Senator Blunt and Senator 
Portman, we are where we are today, and the Senate will soon pass TAA 
without an amendment. Both parties in the Senate have acted in good 
faith to move this process forward. Now it is the President's turn. No 
more moving the goalposts; no more excuses. It is time for the 
administration to demonstrate something that seems to be in short 
supply on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and that is trust. The 
Senate today will have acted on trust in passing TAA even before we 
have received the agreements. The White House has refused to show the 
same trust in congressional Republicans who have assured them that TAA 
will move along with the free-trade agreements.
  I kept my promise I would allow TAA to move forward in the Senate as 
long as Republicans had a chance to amend it. It is time for the 
administration to deliver theirs. It is time for the President to send 
up these long-pending free-trade agreements without further delay.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. For the benefit of the Senators, so we can look at the 
schedule a little bit this evening, first of all, I appreciate the 
support for this trade adjustment assistance from my Republican 
colleagues. It is an important piece of legislation. I am glad we are 
able to complete this at least in the Senate.
  As I have said many times, we have to make sure the House also passes 
this. I have been told by the Speaker and others in the Republican 
leadership in the House that they will do that. I am hopeful and 
confident they will. Once that is done--and they have ways of making 
sure through a rule they can issue, it would not be sent to the 
President. They do not have to enroll it until the trade bill is 
passed. Once the trade bill is passed, of course, they would send the 
trade adjustment assistance to the White House.
  This is the first step of this agreement, I don't need to tell 
everyone here--I have spoken to the Republican leader many times--I do 
not support any of those trade agreements, but I am going to live up to 
what I said I would do and do what I can to move those through the 
Senate as quickly as possible so there are fair votes on all of them. 
We are waiting for the House to take action also.
  Finally, without belaboring the point on trade adjustment assistance, 
I repeat what I said earlier. I appreciate very much the support of the 
Republicans in getting the votes necessary to pass this bill. It was a 
nice vote and I appreciate it very much.
  As far as the rest of the evening, I just talked with the House 
Democratic leadership, some of them, and right now the Republicans are 
still trying to get enough votes to pass something over there. Right 
now they have not been able to do that so they have not even asked for 
the rule to be issued. We are waiting to see what they do. Some of the 
reports out of the House are troubling, to say the least. One of the 
latest proposals we have heard--remember, one reason this went so bad 
is that 53 House Republicans wrote a letter to the Republican 
leadership in the House and said, unless you cut back the CR--remember, 
that is an agreement we worked on for 3 months to get agreements so we 
took care of the 301(a)s and 301(b)s for the rest of the year. They 
said until you cut that by $28 billion, we are not going to vote for 
it--$28 billion.
  The latest we have heard from the House in an effort to satisfy the 
$28 billion that the 53 Republicans want is they said they are going to 
cut renewable energy projects by another $110 million. So if that goes 
through, then the 53 Republicans, instead of settling for $28 billion, 
are going to settle for $110 million. From Las Vegas, those are not 
very good odds in a card game.
  I hope we do something that is fair and realistic. I hope they send 
us a CR. I hope they send a reasonably important number on FEMA. We 
know what is needed. The Secretary of Homeland Security was in Joplin, 
MO, today, looking at the devastation there and the work that has 
stopped in that town that was struck by winds of 300 miles an hour.
  We are here. We are going to have a caucus in 20 minutes, but I 
cannot see us doing anything tonight.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If my friend would yield on that point.
  Mr. REID. Surely.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think I can probably speak for everybody on this 
side that if we had a choice between wrapping all of this up sometime 
tonight, as opposed to coming back tomorrow, I think I am pretty safe 
in saying we prefer, if it is possible, to complete the job tonight 
knowing full well we are scheduled not to be here next week. Presumably 
if we finish the job in a way that is satisfactory to both the House 
and the Senate, I think our preference would be to grind through and to 
try to get to the end tonight.
  Mr. REID. I understand what my friend is saying. I am sure if we took 
a vote, everyone would agree on that. If we don't get that bill until 
after midnight tonight, there is a limit as to what we can do. It may 
be necessary to come back sometime tomorrow morning. I have a number of 
us over here who have important things to do, not only legislatively 
but some with their own personal business. So I understand

[[Page S5885]]

if we have to come back tomorrow, we will try to do it as early as 
possible. We have some very serious things to do here. We have millions 
of people who are struggling because of this disaster relief. We talk 
about disaster relief as if it is some number up in the air, but these 
are jobs we are talking about. These are millions of dollars we are 
talking about providing for renovation, repair, and all of the other 
things that need to be done in the disaster areas. These are jobs. 
People are waiting to do that work and, of course, the CR is very 
important.
  I would hope the House would send us something that is fair and 
reasonable, because if it is more of the same as yesterday, I do not 
think they are going to get the Democratic votes in the House. I do not 
think they will get any over here. This is not a high school game of 
``I've gotcha.'' We are willing to be reasonable, but we are not 
willing to vote unreasonably.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill (H.R. 2832), as amended, pass?
  Mr. FRANKEN. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), 
and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Barrasso
     Corker
     Enzi
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 70, the nays are 
27. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for passage of the 
bill, the bill, as amended, is passed.
  The bill (H.R. 2832), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                               H.R. 2832

       Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives 
     (H.R. 2832) entitled ``An Act to extend the Generalized 
     System of Preferences, and for other purposes.'', do pass 
     with the following amendment:
At the end, add the following:

                 TITLE II--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 200. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     title is as follows:

                 TITLE II--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

Sec. 200. Short title; table of contents.

          Subtitle A--Extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance

    PART I--Application of Provisions Relating to Trade Adjustment 
                               Assistance

Sec. 201. Application of provisions relating to trade adjustment 
              assistance.

            PART II--Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers

Sec. 211. Group eligibility requirements.
Sec. 212. Reductions in waivers from training.
Sec. 213. Limitations on trade readjustment allowances.
Sec. 214. Funding of training, employment and case management services, 
              and job search and relocation allowances.
Sec. 215. Reemployment trade adjustment assistance.
Sec. 216. Program accountability.
Sec. 217. Extension.

                 PART III--Other Adjustment Assistance

Sec. 221. Trade adjustment assistance for firms.
Sec. 222. Trade adjustment assistance for communities.
Sec. 223. Trade adjustment assistance for farmers.

                      PART IV--General Provisions

Sec. 231. Applicability of trade adjustment assistance provisions.
Sec. 232. Termination provisions.
Sec. 233. Sunset provisions.

                Subtitle B--Health Coverage Improvement

Sec. 241. Health care tax credit.
Sec. 242. TAA pre-certification period rule for purposes of determining 
              whether there is a 63-day lapse in creditable coverage.
Sec. 243. Extension of COBRA benefits for certain TAA-eligible 
              individuals and PBGC recipients.

                          Subtitle C--Offsets

          PART I--Unemployment Compensation Program Integrity

Sec. 251. Mandatory penalty assessment on fraud claims.
Sec. 252. Prohibition on noncharging due to employer fault.
Sec. 253. Reporting of rehired employees to the directory of new hires.

                      PART II--Additional Offsets

Sec. 261. Improvements to contracts with Medicare quality improvement 
              organizations (QIOs) in order to improve the quality of 
              care furnished to Medicare beneficiaries.
Sec. 262. Rates for merchandise processing fees.
Sec. 263. Time for remitting certain merchandise processing fees.

          Subtitle A--Extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance

    PART I--APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO TRADE ADJUSTMENT 
                               ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 201. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO TRADE 
                   ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Repeal of Snapback.--Section 1893 of the Trade and 
     Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-5; 123 Stat. 422) is repealed.
       (b) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--Except as 
     otherwise provided in this subtitle, the provisions of 
     chapters 2 through 6 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
     in effect on February 12, 2011, and as amended by this 
     subtitle, shall--
       (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) apply to petitions for certification filed under 
     chapters 2, 3, or 6 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 on 
     or after such date of enactment.
       (c) References.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subtitle, whenever in this subtitle an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     provision of chapters 2 through 6 of title II of the Trade 
     Act of 1974, the reference shall be considered to be made to 
     a provision of any such chapter, as in effect on February 12, 
     2011.

            PART II--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR WORKERS

     SEC. 211. GROUP ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2272) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as 
     subsections (b) through (e), respectively;
       (3) in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), as redesignated, by 
     striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(c)'';
       (4) in subsection (c), as redesignated, by striking 
     paragraph (5); and
       (5) in paragraph (2) of subsection (d), as redesignated, by 
     striking ``, (b), or (c)'' and inserting ``or (b)''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 247 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2319) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``Subject to section 222(d)(5), the term'' and inserting 
     ``The term''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``, service sector 
     firm, or public agency'' and inserting ``or service sector 
     firm'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (7); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (19) as 
     paragraphs (7) through (18), respectively.

     SEC. 212. REDUCTIONS IN WAIVERS FROM TRAINING.

       (a) In General.--Section 231(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2291(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``(D), (E), or (F)'' 
     and inserting ``or (C)''.
       (b) Good Cause Exception.--Section 234(b) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2294(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Special Rule on Good Cause for Waiver of Time Limits 
     or Late Filing of Claims.--The Secretary shall establish 
     procedures and criteria that allow for a waiver for good 
     cause of the time limitations with respect to an application 
     for a trade readjustment allowance or enrollment in training 
     under this chapter.''.

     SEC. 213. LIMITATIONS ON TRADE READJUSTMENT ALLOWANCES.

       Section 233 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293) is 
     amended--

[[Page S5886]]

       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by striking ``(or'' and all that follows through 
     ``period)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``78'' and inserting ``65''; and
       (ii) by striking ``91-week period'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``78-week period''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
       ``(f) Payment of Trade Readjustment Allowances to Complete 
     Training.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section, in order to assist an adversely affected worker to 
     complete training approved for the worker under section 236 
     that leads to the completion of a degree or industry-
     recognized credential, payments may be made as trade 
     readjustment allowances for not more than 13 weeks within 
     such period of eligibility as the Secretary may prescribe to 
     account for a break in training or for justifiable cause that 
     follows the last week for which the worker is otherwise 
     entitled to a trade readjustment allowance under this chapter 
     if--
       ``(1) payment of the trade readjustment allowance for not 
     more than 13 weeks is necessary for the worker to complete 
     the training;
       ``(2) the worker participates in training in each such 
     week; and
       ``(3) the worker--
       ``(A) has substantially met the performance benchmarks 
     established as part of the training approved for the worker;
       ``(B) is expected to continue to make progress toward the 
     completion of the training; and
       ``(C) will complete the training during that period of 
     eligibility.''.

     SEC. 214. FUNDING OF TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT AND CASE MANAGEMENT 
                   SERVICES, AND JOB SEARCH AND RELOCATION 
                   ALLOWANCES.

       (a) In General.--Section 236(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2296(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and sections 235, 237, and 238'' after 
     ``to carry out this section'' each place it appears;
       (2) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``of 
     payments that may be made under paragraph (1)'' and inserting 
     ``of funds available to carry out this section and sections 
     235, 237, and 238''; and
       (B) by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) $575,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 and 2013; 
     and
       ``(ii) $143,750,000 for the 3-month period beginning on 
     October 1, 2013, and ending on December 31, 2013.'';
       (3) in subparagraph (C)(ii)(V), by striking ``relating to 
     the provision of training under this section'' and inserting 
     ``to carry out this section and sections 235, 237, and 238''; 
     and
       (4) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``to pay the costs of 
     training approved under this section'' and inserting ``to 
     carry out this section and sections 235, 237, and 238''.
       (b) Limitations on Administrative Expenses and Employment 
     and Case Management Services.--
       (1) In general.--Section 235A of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2295a) is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``FUNDING FOR'' and 
     inserting ``LIMITATIONS ON''; and
       (B) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``Of the funds made available to a State to carry out 
     sections 235 through 238 for a fiscal year, the State shall 
     use--
       ``(1) not more than 10 percent for the administration of 
     the trade adjustment assistance for workers program under 
     this chapter, including for--
       ``(A) processing waivers of training requirements under 
     section 231;
       ``(B) collecting, validating, and reporting data required 
     under this chapter; and
       ``(C) providing reemployment trade adjustment assistance 
     under section 246; and
       ``(2) not less than 5 percent for employment and case 
     management services under section 235.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Trade Act of 1974 is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 235A and inserting the following:

``Sec. 235A. Limitations on administrative expenses and employment and 
              case management services.''.
       (c) Reallotment of Funds.--Section 245 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2317) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Reallotment of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may--
       ``(A) reallot funds that were allotted to any State to 
     carry out sections 235 through 238 and that remain 
     unobligated by the State during the second or third fiscal 
     year after the fiscal year in which the funds were provided 
     to the State; and
       ``(B) provide such realloted funds to States to carry out 
     sections 235 through 238 in accordance with procedures 
     established by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Requests by states.--In establishing procedures under 
     paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall include procedures that 
     provide for the distribution of realloted funds under that 
     paragraph pursuant to requests submitted by States in need of 
     such funds.
       ``(3) Availability of amounts.--The reallotment of funds 
     under paragraph (1) shall not extend the period for which 
     such funds are available for expenditure.''.
       (d) Job Search Allowances.--Section 237 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2297) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``An adversely affected worker'' and 
     inserting ``Each State may use funds made available to the 
     State to carry out sections 235 through 238 to allow an 
     adversely affected worker''; and
       (B) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``to'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``An'' and inserting ``Any''; and
       (ii) by striking ``all necessary job search expenses'' and 
     inserting ``not more than 90 percent of the necessary job 
     search expenses of the worker''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$1,500'' and inserting 
     ``$1,250''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``the Secretary shall'' 
     and inserting ``a State may''.
       (e) Relocation Allowances.--Section 238 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2298) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``Any adversely affected worker'' and 
     inserting ``Each State may use funds made available to the 
     State to carry out sections 235 through 238 to allow an 
     adversely affected worker''; and
       (B) by striking ``may file'' and inserting ``to file''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``The'' and inserting ``Any''; and
       (ii) by striking ``includes'' and inserting ``shall 
     include'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``all'' and inserting 
     ``not more than 90 percent of the''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$1,500'' and inserting 
     ``$1,250''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--Section 236 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2296) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``approppriate'' and inserting ``appropriate''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (g) and redesignating subsection 
     (h) as subsection (g).

     SEC. 215. REEMPLOYMENT TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 246(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2318(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(B)(ii), by striking ``$55,000'' and 
     inserting ``$50,000''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``$12,000'' and 
     inserting ``$10,000''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``$12,000'' and 
     inserting ``$10,000''.
       (b) Extension.--Section 246(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2318(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``February 12, 
     2011'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.

     SEC. 216. PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY.

       (a) Core Indicators of Performance.--
       (1) In general.--Section 239(j)(2)(A) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2311(j)(2)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--The core indicators of performance 
     described in this paragraph are--
       ``(i) the percentage of workers receiving benefits under 
     this chapter who are employed during the first or second 
     calendar quarter following the calendar quarter in which the 
     workers cease receiving such benefits;
       ``(ii) the percentage of such workers who are employed 
     during the 2 calendar quarters following the earliest 
     calendar quarter during which the worker was employed as 
     described in clause (i);
       ``(iii) the average earnings of such workers who are 
     employed during the 2 calendar quarters described in clause 
     (ii); and
       ``(iv) the percentage of such workers who obtain a 
     recognized postsecondary credential, including an industry-
     recognized credential, or a secondary school diploma or its 
     recognized equivalent if combined with employment under 
     clause (i), while receiving benefits under this chapter or 
     during the 1-year period after such workers cease receiving 
     such benefits.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) take effect on October 1, 2011; and
       (B) apply with respect to agreements under section 239 of 
     the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2311) entered into before, 
     on, or after October 1, 2011.
       (b) Collection and Publication of Data.--
       (1) In general.--Section 249B(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2323(b)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``(including such 
     allowances classified by payments under paragraphs (1) and 
     (3) of section 233(a), and section 233(f), respectively) and 
     payments under section 246'' after ``readjustment 
     allowances''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) The average number of weeks trade readjustment 
     allowances were paid to workers.
       ``(E) The number of workers who report that they have 
     received benefits under a prior certification issued under 
     this chapter in any of the 10 fiscal years preceding the 
     fiscal year for which the data is collected under this 
     section.'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``training leading to 
     an associate's degree, remedial education, prerequisite 
     education,'' after ``distance learning,'';
       (ii) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) The number of workers who complete training approved 
     under section 236 who were enrolled in pre-layoff training or 
     part-time training at any time during that training.'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, and the average 
     duration of training that does not include remedial or 
     prerequisite education'' after ``training'';
       (iv) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``duration'' and 
     inserting ``average duration''; and
       (v) in subparagraph (F), by inserting ``and the average 
     duration of the training that was completed by such workers'' 
     after ``training''; and

[[Page S5887]]

       (C) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (ii) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) A summary of the data on workers in the quarterly 
     reports required under section 239(j) classified by the age, 
     pre-program educational level, and post-program credential 
     attainment of the workers.
       ``(C) The average earnings of workers described in section 
     239(j)(2)(A)(i) in the second, third, and fourth calendar 
     quarters following the calendar quarter in which such workers 
     cease receiving benefits under this chapter, expressed as a 
     percentage of the average earnings of such workers in the 3 
     calendar quarters before the calendar quarter in which such 
     workers began receiving benefits under this chapter.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Data on spending.--
       ``(A) The total amount of funds used to pay for trade 
     readjustment allowances, in the aggregate and by each State.
       ``(B) The total amount of the payments to the States to 
     carry out sections 235 through 238 used for training, in the 
     aggregate and for each State.
       ``(C) The total amount of payments to the States to carry 
     out sections 235 through 238 used for the costs of 
     administration, in the aggregate and for each State.
       ``(D) The total amount of payments to the States to carry 
     out sections 235 through 238 used for job search and 
     relocation allowances, in the aggregate and for each 
     State.''.
       (2) Effective date.--Not later than October 1, 2012, the 
     Secretary of Labor shall update the system required by 
     section 249B(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2323(a)) 
     to include the collection of and reporting on the data 
     required by the amendments made by paragraph (1).
       (3) Annual report.--Section 249B(d) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2323(d)) is amended by striking ``December 
     15'' and inserting ``February 15''.

     SEC. 217. EXTENSION.

       Section 245(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2317(a)) 
     is amended by striking ``February 12, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2013''.

                 PART III--OTHER ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 221. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS.

       (a) Annual Report.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 3 of title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 255 the following:

     ``SEC. 255A. ANNUAL REPORT ON TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   FIRMS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than December 15, 2012, and 
     annually thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare a report 
     containing data regarding the trade adjustment assistance for 
     firms program under this chapter for the preceding fiscal 
     year. The data shall include the following:
       ``(1) The number of firms that inquired about the program.
       ``(2) The number of petitions filed under section 251.
       ``(3) The number of petitions certified and denied by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(4) The average time for processing petitions after the 
     petitions are filed.
       ``(5) The number of petitions filed and firms certified for 
     each congressional district of the United States.
       ``(6) Of the number of petitions filed, the number of firms 
     that entered the program and received benefits.
       ``(7) The number of firms that received assistance in 
     preparing their petitions.
       ``(8) The number of firms that received assistance 
     developing business recovery plans.
       ``(9) The number of business recovery plans approved and 
     denied by the Secretary.
       ``(10) The average duration of benefits received under the 
     program nationally and in each region served by an 
     intermediary organization referred to in section 253(b)(1).
       ``(11) Sales, employment, and productivity at each firm 
     participating in the program at the time of certification.
       ``(12) Sales, employment, and productivity at each firm 
     upon completion of the program and each year for the 2-year 
     period following completion of the program.
       ``(13) The number of firms in operation as of the date of 
     the report and the number of firms that ceased operations 
     after completing the program and in each year during the 2-
     year period following completion of the program.
       ``(14) The financial assistance received by each firm 
     participating in the program.
       ``(15) The financial contribution made by each firm 
     participating in the program.
       ``(16) The types of technical assistance included in the 
     business recovery plans of firms participating in the 
     program.
       ``(17) The number of firms leaving the program before 
     completing the project or projects in their business recovery 
     plans and the reason the project or projects were not 
     completed.
       ``(18) The total amount expended by all intermediary 
     organizations referred to in section 253(b)(1) and by each 
     such organization to administer the program.
       ``(19) The total amount expended by intermediary 
     organizations to provide technical assistance to firms under 
     the program nationally and in each region served by such an 
     organization.
       ``(b) Classification of Data.--To the extent possible, in 
     collecting and reporting the data described in subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall classify the data by intermediary 
     organization, State, and national totals.
       ``(c) Report to Congress; Publication.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) submit the report described in subsection (a) to the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of the House of Representatives; and
       ``(2) publish the report in the Federal Register and on the 
     website of the Department of Commerce.
       ``(d) Protection of Confidential Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not release 
     information described in subsection (a) that the Secretary 
     considers to be confidential business information unless the 
     person submitting the confidential business information had 
     notice, at the time of submission, that such information 
     would be released by the Secretary, or such person 
     subsequently consents to the release of the information.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to prohibit the Secretary from providing 
     information the Secretary considers to be confidential 
     business information under paragraph (1) to a court in camera 
     or to another party under a protective order issued by a 
     court.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 255 the following:

``Sec. 255A. Annual report on trade adjustment assistance for firms.''.
       (3) Conforming repeal.--Effective on the day after the date 
     on which the Secretary of Commerce submits the report 
     required by section 1866 of the Trade and Globalization 
     Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 (19 U.S.C. 2356) for fiscal 
     year 2011, such section is repealed.
       (b) Extension.--Section 255(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2345(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$50,000,000'' and all that follows 
     through ``February 12, 2011.'' and inserting ``$16,000,000 
     for each of the fiscal years 2012 and 2013, and $4,000,000 
     for the 3-month period beginning on October 1, 2013, and 
     ending on December 31, 2013.''; and
       (2) by striking ``shall--'' and all that follows through 
     ``otherwise remain'' and inserting ``shall remain''.

     SEC. 222. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITIES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2371 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking subchapters A, C, and D;
       (2) in subchapter B, by striking the subchapter heading; 
     and
       (3) by redesignating sections 278 and 279 as sections 271 
     and 272, respectively.
       (b) Annual Report.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (e) of section 271 of the Trade 
     Act of 1974, as redesignated by subsection (a)(3), is 
     amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``December 15 in each of the calendar years 2009 through'' 
     and inserting ``December 15, 2009,'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) providing the following data relating to program 
     performance and outcomes:
       ``(A) Of the grants awarded under this section, the  amount 
     of funds spent by grantees.
       ``(B) The average dollar amount of grants awarded under 
     this section.
       ``(C) The average duration of grants awarded under this 
     section.
       ``(D) The percentage of workers receiving benefits under 
     chapter 2 that are served by programs developed, offered, or 
     improved using grants awarded under this section.
       ``(E) The percentage and number of workers receiving 
     benefits under chapter 2 who obtained a degree through such 
     programs and the average duration of the participation of 
     such workers in training under section 236.
       ``(F) The number of workers receiving benefits under 
     chapter 2 served by such programs who did not complete a 
     degree and the average duration of the participation of such 
     workers in training under section 236.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) take effect on October 1, 2011; and
       (B) apply with respect to reports submitted under 
     subsection (e) of section 271 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(3), on or after October 1, 
     2012.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 271 of the Trade Act of 1974, as redesignated 
     by subsection (a)(3), is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (4)--

       (I) in subparagraph (A)--

       (aa) in clause (ii), by striking the semicolon and 
     inserting ``; and'';
       (bb) by striking clauses (iii) and (iv); and
       (cc) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (iii);

       (II) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(A)(v)'' and 
     inserting ``(A)(iii)''; and

       (ii) in paragraph (5)(A)--

       (I) in clause (i)--

       (aa) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking ``, 
     and other entities described in section 276(a)(2)(B)''; and
       (bb) in subclause (II), by striking the semicolon and 
     inserting ``; and'';

       (II) by striking clause (iii); and

       (B) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
       (2) Subsection (b) of section 272 of the Trade Act of 1974, 
     as redesignated by subsection (a)(3), is amended by striking 
     ``278(a)(2)'' and inserting ``271(a)(2)''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Trade Act of 1974 is amended by striking the items relating 
     to chapter 4 of title II and inserting the following:

[[Page S5888]]

        ``Chapter 4--Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities

``Sec. 271. Community College and Career Training Grant Program.
``Sec. 272. Authorization of appropriations.''.

     SEC. 223. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS.

       (a) Annual Report.--
       (1) In general.--Section 293(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2401b(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Annual Report.--Not later than January 30 of each 
     year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Finance 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives a report containing the following 
     information with respect to the trade adjustment assistance 
     for farmers program under this chapter during the preceding 
     fiscal year:
       ``(1) A list of the agricultural commodities covered by a 
     certification under this chapter.
       ``(2) The States or regions in which agricultural 
     commodities are produced and the aggregate amount of such 
     commodities produced in each such State or region.
       ``(3) The number of petitions filed.
       ``(4) The number of petitions certified and denied by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(5) The average time for processing petitions.
       ``(6) The number of petitions filed and agricultural 
     commodity producers approved for each congressional district 
     of the United States.
       ``(7) Of the number of producers approved, the number of 
     agricultural commodity producers that entered the program and 
     received benefits.
       ``(8) The number of agricultural commodity producers that 
     completed initial technical assistance.
       ``(9) The number of agricultural commodity producers that 
     completed intensive technical assistance.
       ``(10) The number of initial business plans approved and 
     denied by the Secretary.
       ``(11) The number of long-term business plans approved and 
     denied by the Secretary.
       ``(12) The total number of agricultural commodity 
     producers, by congressional district, receiving initial 
     technical assistance and intensive technical assistance, 
     respectively, under this chapter.
       ``(13) The types of initial technical assistance received 
     by agricultural commodity producers participating in the 
     program.
       ``(14) The types of intensive technical assistance received 
     by agricultural commodity producers participating in the 
     program.
       ``(15) The number of agricultural commodity producers 
     leaving the program before completing the projects in their 
     long-term business plans and the reason those projects were 
     not completed.
       ``(16) The total number of agricultural commodity 
     producers, by congressional district, receiving benefits 
     under this chapter.
       ``(17) The average duration of benefits received under this 
     chapter.
       ``(18) The number of agricultural commodity producers in 
     operation as of the date of the report and the number of 
     agricultural commodity producers that ceased operations after 
     completing the program and in the 1-year period following 
     completion of the program.
       ``(19) The number of agricultural commodity producers that 
     report that such producers received benefits under a prior 
     certification issued under this chapter in any of the 10 
     fiscal years preceding the date of the report.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) take effect on October 1, 2011; and
       (B) apply with respect to reports submitted under section 
     293(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2401b(d)) on or 
     after October 1, 2012.
       (b) Extension.--Section 298(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2401g(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and there are appropriated''; and
       (2) by striking ``not to exceed'' and all that follows 
     through ``February 12, 2011'' and inserting ``not to exceed 
     $90,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 and 2013, and 
     $22,500,000 for the 3-month period beginning on October 1, 
     2013, and ending on December 31, 2013''.

                      PART IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 231. APPLICABILITY OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE 
                   PROVISIONS.

       (a) Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers.--
       (1) Petitions filed on or after february 13, 2011, and 
     before date of enactment.--
       (A) Certifications of workers not certified before date of 
     enactment.--
       (i) Criteria if a determination has not been made.--If, as 
     of the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Labor has not made a determination with respect to whether to 
     certify a group of workers as eligible to apply for 
     adjustment assistance under section 222 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 pursuant to a petition described in clause (iii), the 
     Secretary shall make that determination based on the 
     requirements of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as in 
     effect on such date of enactment.
       (ii) Reconsideration of denials of certifications.--If, 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     made a determination not to certify a group of workers as 
     eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 222 
     of the Trade Act of 1974 pursuant to a petition described in 
     clause (iii), the Secretary shall--

       (I) reconsider that determination; and
       (II) if the group of workers meets the requirements of 
     section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as in effect on such 
     date of enactment, certify the group of workers as eligible 
     to apply for adjustment assistance.

       (iii) Petition described.--A petition described in this 
     clause is a petition for a certification of eligibility for a 
     group of workers filed under section 221 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 on or after February 13, 2011, and before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Eligibility for benefits.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), a 
     worker certified as eligible to apply for adjustment 
     assistance under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 
     pursuant to a petition described in subparagraph (A)(iii) 
     shall be eligible, on and after the date that is 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, to receive 
     benefits only under the provisions of chapter 2 of title II 
     of the Trade Act of 1974, as in effect on such date of 
     enactment.
       (ii) Election for workers receiving benefits on the 60th 
     day after enactment.--

       (I) In general.--A worker certified as eligible to apply 
     for adjustment assistance under section 222 of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 pursuant to a petition described in subparagraph 
     (A)(iii) who is receiving benefits under chapter 2 of title 
     II of the Trade Act of 1974 as of the date that is 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act may, not later 
     than the date that is 150 days after such date of enactment, 
     make a one-time election to receive benefits pursuant to--

       (aa) the provisions of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade 
     Act of 1974, as in effect on such date of enactment; or
       (bb) the provisions of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade 
     Act of 1974, as in effect on February 13, 2011.

       (II) Effect of failure to make election.--A worker 
     described in subclause (I) who does not make the election 
     described in that subclause on or before the date that is 150 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act shall be 
     eligible to receive benefits only under the provisions of 
     chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as in effect 
     on February 13, 2011.
       (III) Computation of maximum benefits.--Benefits received 
     by a worker described in subclause (I) under chapter 2 of 
     title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as in effect on February 
     13, 2011, before the worker makes the election described in 
     that subclause shall be included in any determination of the 
     maximum benefits for which the worker is eligible under the 
     provisions of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974, 
     as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, or as 
     in effect on February 13, 2011, whichever is applicable after 
     the election of the worker under subclause (I).

       (2) Petitions filed before february 13, 2011.--A worker 
     certified as eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
     pursuant to a petition filed under section 221 of the Trade 
     Act of 1974--
       (A) on or after May 18, 2009, and on or before February 12, 
     2011, shall continue to be eligible to apply for and receive 
     benefits under the provisions of chapter 2 of title II of 
     such Act, as in effect on February 12, 2011; or
       (B) before May 18, 2009, shall continue to be eligible to 
     apply for and receive benefits under the provisions of 
     chapter 2 of title II of such Act, as in effect on May 17, 
     2009.
       (3) Qualifying separations with respect to petitions filed 
     within 90 days of date of enactment.--Section 223(b) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974, as in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, shall be applied and administered by 
     substituting ``before February 13, 2010'' for ``more than one 
     year before the date of the petition on which such 
     certification was granted'' for purposes of determining 
     whether a worker is eligible to apply for adjustment 
     assistance pursuant to a petition filed under section 221 of 
     the Trade Act of 1974 on or after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act and on or before the date that is 90 days after 
     such date of enactment.
       (b) Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.--
       (1) Certification of firms not certified before date of 
     enactment.--
       (A) Criteria if a determination has not been made.--If, as 
     of the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Commerce has not made a determination with respect to whether 
     to certify a firm as eligible to apply for adjustment 
     assistance under section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 
     pursuant to a petition described in subparagraph (C), the 
     Secretary shall make that determination based on the 
     requirements of section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as in 
     effect on such date of enactment.
       (B) Reconsideration of denial of certain petitions.--If, 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     made a determination not to certify a firm as eligible to 
     apply for adjustment assistance under section 251 of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 pursuant to a petition described in 
     subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall--
       (i) reconsider that determination; and
       (ii) if the firm meets the requirements of section 251 of 
     the Trade Act of 1974, as in effect on such date of 
     enactment, certify the firm as eligible to apply for 
     adjustment assistance.
       (C) Petition described.--A petition described in this 
     subparagraph is a petition for a certification of eligibility 
     filed by a firm or its representative under section 251 of 
     the Trade Act of 1974 on or after February 13, 2011, and 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Certification of firms that did not submit petitions 
     between february 13, 2011, and date of enactment.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall certify a 
     firm described in subparagraph (B) as eligible to apply for 
     adjustment assistance under section 251 of the Trade Act of 
     1974, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     if the firm or its representative files a petition for a 
     certification of eligibility under section 251 of the Trade 
     Act of 1974 not later than 90 days after such date of 
     enactment.
       (B) Firm described.--A firm described in this subparagraph 
     is a firm that the Secretary determines would have been 
     certified as eligible to apply for adjustment assistance if--

[[Page S5889]]

       (i) the firm or its representative had filed a petition for 
     a certification of eligibility under section 251 of the Trade 
     Act of 1974 on a date during the period beginning on February 
     13, 2011, and ending on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (ii) the provisions of chapter 3 of title II of the Trade 
     Act of 1974, as in effect on such date of enactment, had been 
     in effect on that date during the period described in clause 
     (i).

     SEC. 232. TERMINATION PROVISIONS.

       Section 285 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``February 12, 2011'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``December 31, 2013'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``that chapter'' and all that follows through ``the worker 
     is--'' and inserting ``that chapter if the worker is--''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``petitions'' and 
     inserting ``a petition''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``pursuant to a petition filed under 
     section 251'' after ``chapter 3'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``pursuant to a petition filed under 
     section 292'' after ``chapter 6''; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (3).

     SEC. 233. SUNSET PROVISIONS.

       (a) Application of Prior Law.--Subject to subsection (b), 
     beginning on January 1, 2014, the provisions of chapters 2, 
     3, 5, and 6 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2271 et seq.), as in effect on February 13, 2011, shall 
     apply, except that in applying and administering such 
     chapters--
       (1) paragraph (1) of section 231(c) of that Act shall be 
     applied and administered as if subparagraphs (A), (B), and 
     (C) of that paragraph were not in effect;
       (2) section 233 of that Act shall be applied and 
     administered--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (2), by substituting ``104-week period'' 
     for ``104-week period'' and all that follows through ``130-
     week period)''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
     substituting ``65'' for ``52''; and
       (II) by substituting ``78-week period'' for ``52-week 
     period'' each place it appears; and

       (B) by applying and administering subsection (g) as if it 
     read as follows:
       ``(g) Payment of Trade Readjustment Allowances to Complete 
     Training.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section, in order to assist an adversely affected worker to 
     complete training approved for the worker under section 236 
     that leads to the completion of a degree or industry-
     recognized credential, payments may be made as trade 
     readjustment allowances for not more than 13 weeks within 
     such period of eligibility as the Secretary may prescribe to 
     account for a break in training or for justifiable cause that 
     follows the last week for which the worker is otherwise 
     entitled to a trade readjustment allowance under this chapter 
     if--
       ``(1) payment of the trade readjustment allowance for not 
     more than 13 weeks is necessary for the worker to complete 
     the training;
       ``(2) the worker participates in training in each such 
     week; and
       ``(3) the worker--
       ``(A) has substantially met the performance benchmarks 
     established as part of the training approved for the worker;
       ``(B) is expected to continue to make progress toward the 
     completion of the training; and
       ``(C) will complete the training during that period of 
     eligibility.'';
       (3) section 245 of that Act shall be applied and 
     administered by substituting ``2014'' for ``2007'';
       (4) section 246(b)(1) of that Act shall be applied and 
     administered by substituting ``December 31, 2014'' for ``the 
     date that is 5 years'' and all that follows through 
     ``State'';
       (5) section 256(b) of that Act shall be applied and 
     administered by substituting ``the 1-year period beginning on 
     January 1, 2014'' for ``each of fiscal years 2003 through 
     2007, and $4,000,000 for the 3-month period beginning on 
     October 1, 2007'';
       (6) section 298(a) of that Act shall be applied and 
     administered by substituting ``the 1-year period beginning on 
     January 1, 2014'' for ``each of the fiscal years'' and all 
     that follows through ``October 1, 2007''; and
       (7) section 285 of that Act shall be applied and 
     administered--
       (A) in subsection (a), by substituting ``2014'' for 
     ``2007'' each place it appears; and
       (B) by applying and administering subsection (b) as if it 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Other Assistance.--
       ``(1) Assistance for firms.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     assistance may not be provided under chapter 3 after December 
     31, 2014.
       ``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), any 
     assistance approved under chapter 3 on or before December 31, 
     2014, may be provided--
       ``(i) to the extent funds are available pursuant to such 
     chapter for such purpose; and
       ``(ii) to the extent the recipient of the assistance is 
     otherwise eligible to receive such assistance.
       ``(2) Farmers.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     assistance may not be provided under chapter 6 after December 
     31, 2014.
       ``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), any 
     assistance approved under chapter 6 on or before December 31, 
     2014, may be provided--
       ``(i) to the extent funds are available pursuant to such 
     chapter for such purpose; and
       ``(ii) to the extent the recipient of the assistance is 
     otherwise eligible to receive such assistance.''.
       (b) Exceptions.--The provisions of chapters 2, 3, 5, and 6 
     of title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, shall continue to apply on 
     and after January 1, 2014, with respect to--
       (1) workers certified as eligible for trade adjustment 
     assistance benefits under chapter 2 of title II of that Act 
     pursuant to petitions filed under section 221 of that Act 
     before January 1, 2014;
       (2) firms certified as eligible for technical assistance or 
     grants under chapter 3 of title II of that Act pursuant to 
     petitions filed under section 251 of that Act before January 
     1, 2014; and
       (3) agricultural commodity producers certified as eligible 
     for technical or financial assistance under chapter 6 of 
     title II of that Act pursuant to petitions filed under 
     section 292 of that Act before January 1, 2014.

                Subtitle B--Health Coverage Improvement

     SEC. 241. HEALTH CARE TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Termination of Credit.--Subparagraph (B) of section 
     35(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     inserting ``, and before January 1, 2014'' before the period.
       (b) Extension Through Credit Termination Date of Certain 
     Expired Credit Provisions.--
       (1) Partial extension of increased credit rate.--Section 
     35(a) of such Code is amended by striking ``65 percent (80 
     percent in the case of eligible coverage months beginning 
     before February 13, 2011)'' and inserting ``72.5 percent''.
       (2) Extension of advance payment provisions.--
       (A) Section 7527(b) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``65 percent (80 percent in the case of eligible coverage 
     months beginning before February 13, 2011)'' and inserting 
     ``72.5 percent''.
       (B) Section 7527(d)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``which is issued before February 13, 2011''.
       (C) Section 7527(e) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``80 percent'' and inserting ``72.5 percent''.
       (D) Section 7527(e) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``In the case of eligible coverage months beginning before 
     February 13, 2011--''.
       (3) Extension of certain other related provisions.--
       (A) Section 35(c)(2)(B) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and before February 13, 2011''.
       (B) Section 35(e)(1)(K) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``In the case of eligible coverage months beginning before 
     February 13, 2012, coverage'' and inserting ``Coverage''.
       (C) Section 35(g)(9) of such Code, as added by section 
     1899E(a) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 
     2009 (relating to continued qualification of family members 
     after certain events), is amended by striking ``In the case 
     of eligible coverage months beginning before February 13, 
     2011--''.
       (D) Section 173(f)(8) of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 is amended by striking ``In the case of eligible 
     coverage months beginning before February 13, 2011--''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to coverage months beginning after February 12, 2011.
       (2) Advance payment provisions.--
       (A) The amendment made by subsection (b)(2)(B) shall apply 
     to certificates issued after the date which is 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) The amendment made by subsection (b)(2)(D) shall apply 
     to coverage months beginning after the date which is 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 242. TAA PRE-CERTIFICATION PERIOD RULE FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS A 63-DAY LAPSE IN 
                   CREDITABLE COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--The following provisions are each amended 
     by striking ``February 13, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2014'':
       (1) Section 9801(c)(2)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (2) Section 701(c)(2)(C) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1181(c)(2)(C)).
       (3) Section 2701(c)(2)(C) of the Public Health Service Act 
     (as in effect for plan years beginning before January 1, 
     2014).
       (4) Section 2704(c)(2)(C) of the Public Health Service Act 
     (as in effect for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 
     2014).
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to plan years beginning after February 12, 2011.
       (2) Transitional rules.--
       (A) Benefit determinations.--Notwithstanding the amendments 
     made by this section (and the provisions of law amended 
     thereby), a plan shall not be required to modify benefit 
     determinations for the period beginning on February 13, 2011, 
     and ending 30 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, but a plan shall not fail to be qualified health 
     insurance within the meaning of section 35(e) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 during this period merely due to such 
     failure to modify benefit determinations.
       (B) Guidance concerning periods before 30 days after 
     enactment.--Except as provided in subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary of the Treasury (or his designee), in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the 
     Secretary of Labor, may issue regulations or other guidance 
     regarding the scope of the application of the amendments made 
     by this section to periods before the date which is 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (C) Special rule relating to certain loss of coverage.--In 
     the case of a TAA-related loss of coverage (as defined in 
     section 4980B(f)(5)(C)(iv) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986) that occurs during the period beginning

[[Page S5890]]

     on February 13, 2011, and ending 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the 7-day period described in 
     section 9801(c)(2)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
     section 701(c)(2)(C) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974, and section 2701(c)(2)(C) of the Public 
     Health Service Act shall be extended until 30 days after such 
     date of enactment.

     SEC. 243. EXTENSION OF COBRA BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN TAA-
                   ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND PBGC RECIPIENTS.

       (a) In General.--The following provisions are each amended 
     by striking ``February 12, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2014'':
       (1) Section 602(2)(A)(v) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1162(2)(A)(v)).
       (2) Section 602(2)(A)(vi) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1162(2)(A)(vi)).
       (3) Section 4980B(f)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       (4) Section 4980B(f)(2)(B)(i)(VI) of such Code.
       (5) Section 2202(2)(A)(iv) of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(2)(A)(iv)).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to periods of coverage which would (without 
     regard to the amendments made by this section) end on or 
     after the date which is 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

                          Subtitle C--Offsets

          PART I--UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM INTEGRITY

     SEC. 251. MANDATORY PENALTY ASSESSMENT ON FRAUD CLAIMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 303(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 503(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (B) and inserting ``; and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11)(A) At the time the State agency determines an 
     erroneous payment from its unemployment fund was made to an 
     individual due to fraud committed by such individual, the 
     assessment of a penalty on the individual in an amount of not 
     less than 15 percent of the amount of the erroneous payment; 
     and
       ``(B) The immediate deposit of all assessments paid 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) into the unemployment fund of 
     the State.''.
       (b) Application to Federal Payments.--
       (1) In general.--As a condition for administering any 
     unemployment compensation program of the United States (as 
     defined in paragraph (2)) as an agent of the United States, 
     if the State determines that an erroneous payment was made by 
     the State to an individual under any such program due to 
     fraud committed by such individual, the State shall assess a 
     penalty on such individual and deposit any such penalty 
     received in the same manner as the State assesses and 
     deposits such penalties under provisions of State law 
     implementing section 303(a)(11) of the Social Security Act, 
     as added by subsection (a).
       (2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``unemployment compensation program of the United States'' 
     means--
       (A) unemployment compensation for Federal civilian 
     employees under subchapter I of chapter 85 of title 5, United 
     States Code;
       (B) unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers under 
     subchapter II of chapter 85 of title 5, United States Code;
       (C) trade readjustment allowances under sections 231 
     through 234 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2291-2294);
       (D) disaster unemployment assistance under section 410(a) 
     of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5177(a));
       (E) any Federal temporary extension of unemployment 
     compensation;
       (F) any Federal program which increases the weekly amount 
     of unemployment compensation payable to individuals; and
       (G) any other Federal program providing for the payment of 
     unemployment compensation.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to erroneous 
     payments established after the end of the 2-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Authority.--A State may amend its State law to apply 
     such amendments to erroneous payments established prior to 
     the end of the period described in paragraph (1).

     SEC. 252. PROHIBITION ON NONCHARGING DUE TO EMPLOYER FAULT.

       (a) In General.--Section 3303 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (f) and (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Prohibition on Noncharging Due to Employer Fault.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State law shall be treated as meeting 
     the requirements of subsection (a)(1) only if such law 
     provides that an employer's account shall not be relieved of 
     charges relating to a payment from the State unemployment 
     fund if the State agency determines that--
       ``(A) the payment was made because the employer, or an 
     agent of the employer, was at fault for failing to respond 
     timely or adequately to the request of the agency for 
     information relating to the claim for compensation; and
       ``(B) the employer or agent has established a pattern of 
     failing to respond timely or adequately to such requests.
       ``(2) State authority to impose stricter standards.--
     Nothing in paragraph (1) shall limit the authority of a State 
     to provide that an employer's account not be relieved of 
     charges relating to a payment from the State unemployment 
     fund for reasons other than the reasons described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such paragraph, such as after 
     the first instance of a failure to respond timely or 
     adequately to requests described in paragraph (1)(A).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to erroneous 
     payments established after the end of the 2-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Authority.--A State may amend its State law to apply 
     such amendments to erroneous payments established prior to 
     the end of the period described in paragraph (1).

     SEC. 253. REPORTING OF REHIRED EMPLOYEES TO THE DIRECTORY OF 
                   NEW HIRES.

       (a) Definition of Newly Hired Employee.--Section 453A(a)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653a(a)(2)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Newly hired employee.--The term `newly hired 
     employee' means an employee who--
       ``(i) has not previously been employed by the employer; or
       ``(ii) was previously employed by the employer but has been 
     separated from such prior employment for at least 60 
     consecutive days.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments 
     made by this section shall take effect 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Compliance transition period.--If the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services determines that State legislation 
     (other than legislation appropriating funds) is required in 
     order for a State plan under part D of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act to meet the additional requirement imposed by 
     the amendment made by subsection (a), the plan shall not be 
     regarded as failing to meet such requirement before the first 
     day of the second calendar quarter beginning after the close 
     of the first regular session of the State legislature that 
     begins after the effective date of such amendment. If the 
     State has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the 
     session is deemed to be a separate regular session of the 
     State legislature.

                      PART II--ADDITIONAL OFFSETS

     SEC. 261. IMPROVEMENTS TO CONTRACTS WITH MEDICARE QUALITY 
                   IMPROVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS (QIOS) IN ORDER TO 
                   IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CARE FURNISHED TO 
                   MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) Authority to Contract With a Broad Range of Entities.--
       (1) Definition.--Section 1152 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320c-1) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) and inserting the following new paragraphs:
       ``(1) is able, as determined by the Secretary, to perform 
     its functions under this part in a manner consistent with the 
     efficient and effective administration of this part and title 
     XVIII;
       ``(2) has at least one individual who is a representative 
     of health care providers on its governing body; and''.
       (2) Name change.--Part B of title XI of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1320c et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in the headings for sections 1152 and 1153, by striking 
     ``utilization and quality control peer review'' and inserting 
     ``quality improvement'';
       (B) in the heading for section 1154, by striking ``peer 
     review'' and inserting ``quality improvement''; and
       (C) by striking ``utilization and quality control peer 
     review'' and ``peer review'' each place it appears before 
     ``organization'' or ``organizations'' and inserting ``quality 
     improvement''.
       (3) Conforming amendments to the medicare program.--Title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``utilization and quality control peer 
     review'' and inserting ``quality improvement'' each place it 
     appears;
       (B) by striking ``quality control and peer review'' and 
     inserting ``quality improvement'' each place it appears;
       (C) in paragraphs (1)(A)(iii)(I) and (2) of section 
     1842(l), by striking ``peer review organization'' and 
     inserting ``quality improvement organization'';
       (D) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 1866(a)(3), by 
     striking ``peer review'' and inserting ``quality 
     improvement'';
       (E) in section 1867(d)(3), in the heading, by striking 
     ``peer review'' and inserting ``quality improvement''; and
       (F) in section 1869(c)(3)(G), by striking ``peer review 
     organizations'' and inserting ``quality improvement 
     organizations''.
       (b) Improvements With Respect to the Contract.--
       (1) Flexibility with respect to the geographic scope of 
     contracts.--Section 1153 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1320c-2) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(a) The Secretary shall establish throughout the United 
     States such local, State, regional, national, or other 
     geographic areas as the Secretary determines appropriate with 
     respect to which contracts under this part will be made.'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), as amended by subsection (a)(2)--
       (i) in the first sentence, by striking ``a contract with a 
     quality improvement organization'' and inserting ``contracts 
     with one or more quality improvement organizations''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``meets the 
     requirements'' and all that follows before the period at the 
     end and inserting ``will be operating in an area, the 
     Secretary shall ensure that there is no duplication of the 
     functions carried out by such organizations within the 
     area'';
       (C) in subsection (b)(2)(B), by inserting ``or the 
     Secretary determines that there is a more qualified entity to 
     perform one or more of the functions in section 1154(a)'' 
     after ``under this part'';

[[Page S5891]]

       (D) in subsection (b)(3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``, or association of 
     such facilities,''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``or association of such facilities''; and
       (II) by striking ``or associations''; and

       (E) by striking subsection (i).
       (2) Extension of length of contracts.--Section 1153(c)(3) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320c-2(c)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``three years'' and inserting ``five 
     years''; and
       (B) by striking ``on a triennial basis'' and inserting 
     ``for terms of five years''.
       (3) Authority to terminate in a manner consistent with the 
     federal acquisition regulation.--Section 1153 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320c-2) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) The Secretary may consider a variety of factors in 
     selecting the contractors that the Secretary determines would 
     provide for the most efficient and effective administration 
     of this part, such as geographic location, size, and prior 
     experience in health care quality improvement. Quality 
     improvement organizations operating as of January 1, 2012, 
     shall be allowed to compete for new contracts (as determined 
     appropriate by the Secretary) along with other qualified 
     organizations and are eligible for renewal of contracts for 
     terms five years thereafter (as determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary).'';
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking paragraphs (4) through 
     (6) and redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (C) by striking subsection (d).
       (4) Administrative improvement.--Section 1153(c)(5) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320c-2(c)(5)), as 
     redesignated by this subsection, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(5) reimbursement shall be made to the organization on a 
     monthly basis, with payments for any month being made 
     consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation.''.
       (c) Authority for Quality Improvement Organizations To 
     Perform Specialized Functions and to Eliminate Conflicts of 
     Interest.--Part B of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1320c et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 1153--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1), as amended by subsection 
     (b)(1)(B), by inserting after the first sentence the 
     following new sentence: ``In entering into contracts with 
     such qualified organizations, the Secretary shall, to the 
     extent appropriate, seek to ensure that each of the functions 
     described in section 1154(a) are carried out within an area 
     established under subsection (a).''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``the functions set 
     forth in section 1154(a), or may subcontract for the 
     performance of all or some of such functions'' and inserting 
     ``a function or functions under section 1154 directly or may 
     subcontract for the performance of all or some of such 
     function or functions''; and
       (2) in section 1154--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--

       (I) by striking ``Any'' and inserting ``Subject to 
     subsection (b), any''; and
       (II) by inserting ``one or more of'' before ``the following 
     functions'';

       (ii) in paragraph (4), by striking subparagraph (C);
       (iii) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(12) As part of the organization's review responsibility 
     under paragraph (1), the organization shall review all 
     ambulatory surgical procedures specified pursuant to section 
     1833(i)(1)(A) which are performed in the area, or, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, a sample of such procedures.''; 
     and
       (iv) in paragraph (15), by striking ``significant on-site 
     review activities'' and all that follows before the period at 
     the end and inserting ``on-site review activities as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate''.
       (B) by striking subsection (d) and redesignating 
     subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), 
     respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) A quality improvement organization entering into a 
     contract with the Secretary to perform a function described 
     in a paragraph under subsection (a) must perform all of the 
     activities described in such paragraph, except to the extent 
     otherwise negotiated with the Secretary pursuant to the 
     contract or except for a function for which the Secretary 
     determines it is not appropriate for the organization to 
     perform, such as a function that could cause a conflict of 
     interest with another function.''.
       (d) Quality Improvement as Specified Function.--Section 
     1154(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320c-3(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(18) The organization shall perform, subject to the terms 
     of the contract, such other activities as the Secretary 
     determines may be necessary for the purposes of improving the 
     quality of care furnished to individuals with respect to 
     items and services for which payment may be made under title 
     XVIII.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contracts entered into or renewed on or after 
     January 1, 2012.

     SEC. 262. RATES FOR MERCHANDISE PROCESSING FEES.

       (a) Fees for Period From July 1, 2014, to November 30, 
     2015.--For the period beginning on July 1, 2014, and ending 
     on November 30, 2015, section 13031(a)(9) of the Consolidated 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 
     58c(a)(9)) shall be applied and administered--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by substituting ``0.3464'' for 
     ``0.21''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by substituting ``0.3464'' for 
     ``0.21''.
       (b) Fees for Period From October 1, 2016, to September 30, 
     2019.--For the period beginning on October 1, 2016, and 
     ending on September 30, 2019, section 13031(a)(9) of the 
     Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 
     U.S.C. 58c(a)(9)) shall be applied and administered--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by substituting ``0.1740'' for 
     ``0.21''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by substituting ``0.1740'' for 
     ``0.21''.

     SEC. 263. TIME FOR REMITTING CERTAIN MERCHANDISE PROCESSING 
                   FEES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any fees authorized under paragraphs (9) and (10) of 
     section 13031(a) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(a) (9) and (10)) 
     with respect to processing merchandise entered on or after 
     October 1, 2012, and before November 12, 2012, shall be paid 
     not later than September 25, 2012, in an amount equivalent to 
     the amount of such fees paid by the person responsible for 
     such fees with respect to merchandise entered on or after 
     October 1, 2011, and before November 12, 2011, as determined 
     by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (b) Reconciliation of Merchandise Processing Fees.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 12, 2012, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall reconcile the fees paid 
     pursuant to subsection (a) with the fees for services 
     actually provided on or after October 1, 2012, and before 
     November 12, 2012.
       (2) Refunds of overpayments.--
       (A) After making the reconciliation required under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary of the Treasury shall refund 
     with interest any overpayment of such fees made under 
     subsection (a) and make proper adjustments with respect to 
     any underpayment of such fees.
       (B) No interest may be assessed with respect to any such 
     underpayment that was based on the amount of fees paid for 
     merchandise entered on or after October 1, 2012, and before 
     November 12, 2012.

                          ____________________