[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24950-24956]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1961. A bill to extend and expand the Child Safety Pilot Program; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Extending the 
Child Safety Pilot Program Act of 2005, along with my good friend 
Senator Hatch.
  At the outset, let me thank Senator Hatch and his staff for joining 
with me in this effort. I can think of no stronger advocate for 
children's safety than my friend from Utah, and I am so pleased to have 
him as an original cosponsor of this bill.
  When a mom drops her young son or daughter off at the local Boys & 
Girls Club, when a dad brings his child to little league practice, or 
when one of our kids is mentored by an older member of the community, 
we hope and pray that they are going to be safe. They usually are, and 
youth-serving organizations are constantly vetting new employees and 
volunteers to ensure there's nothing in their background to indicate 
that potential workers should not be around our kids.
  But these groups can only do so much. They send information and 
fingerprints on prospective workers to their State criminal 
identification agencies, and that effort typically results in a 
comprehensive search of criminal history information on file in the 
State where the organization is established. But if the worker spent 
time in another state, or if a State's records are not up to date, 
kids' safety can be put in jeopardy.
  The organization with the most complete set of national criminal 
history information is the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services 
Division, in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Years ago, I was approached by 
the Boys & Girls Clubs and others and asked whether there would be a 
way for them to directly access CJIS' records and avoid the then-
cumbersome system requiring them to apply for these national background 
checks through their States.
  I looked into the issue and discovered that a patchwork of statutes 
and regulations govern background checks at the State level. There are 
over 1,200 State statutes concerning criminal record checks. In 
different States, different agencies are authorized to perform 
background checks for different types of organizations, distinct forms 
and information are required, and the results are returned in various 
formats that can be difficult to interpret. Youth-serving organizations 
trying to do the right thing and keep the kids in their charge safe 
were being forced to navigate an extremely cumbersome system.
  Indeed, in 1998, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services 
Division performed an analysis of fingerprints submitted for civil 
applicant purposes. CJIS found that the average transmission time from 
the point of fingerprint to the State bureau was 51.0 days, and from 
the State bureau to the FBI was another 66.6 days, for a total of 117.6 
days from fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. The worst performing 
jurisdiction took 544.8 days from fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. 
In a survey conducted by the National Mentoring Partnership, mentoring 
organizations waited an average of 6 weeks for the results of a 
national criminal background check to be returned. In a New York Times 
article published this past August, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America's 
vice president of club safety, Les Nichols, was quoted as saying that 
about a third of the criminal records that Clubs' checks turned up were 
from states other than the one where the applications were submitted. 
``It can take as long as 18 months to retrieve those records,'' Mr. 
Nichols said, ``and that time lag works against us, particularly 
because we are in a business where we have a lot of seasonal staff and 
volunteers.''
  Not only was the national criminal history background check process 
slow, but it was often too expensive to be useful to youth-serving 
organizations. In 2000, I introduced comprehensive legislation designed 
to plug these security holes. No action was taken on my National Child 
Protection Improvement Act that year. The following year, I re-
introduced the bill as S. 1868. That bill cleared the Senate 
unanimously but was never acted on by the House. It would have set up 
an office in the Justice Department to coordinate

[[Page 24951]]

background check requests from youth-serving organizations, and would 
have required the results of these checks to be forwarded from the FBI 
to the requesting groups quickly and affordably.
  Finally, in 2003's PROTECT Act, we were able to make some progress on 
this critical issue. Along with Senator Hatch and Chairman 
Sensenbrenner of the House Judiciary Committee, I authored section 108 
of the PROTECT Act conference report. Section 108 of Public Law 108-21 
established an 18-month pilot program for certain organizations to 
obtain national criminal history background checks. When he signed the 
PROTECT Act into law, the President noted ``this law creates important 
pilot programs to help nonprofit organizations which deal with children 
to obtain quick and complete criminal background information on 
volunteers. Listen, mentoring programs are essential for our country, 
and we must make sure they are safe for the children they serve.''
  The Child Safety Pilot Program created in the PROTECT Act was 
extended for another 12 months by a provision in last year's 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, but the initiative is 
scheduled to expire at the end of January 2006. Although the Department 
of Justice has yet to submit a status report on the Child Safety Pilot 
Program, as required by law, data provided by groups using the program 
demonstrate its effectiveness and the need for it to be extended.
  At last check, over 10,000 background checks have been conducted 
through the pilot program. In those performed checks, 7.5 percent of 
all workers screened had an arrest or conviction in their record. 
Crimes discovered were serious: rape, child sexual abuse, murder, and 
domestic battery. Half of those individuals were not truthful in their 
job application and instead stated they did not have a criminal record. 
Over one-quarter, 28 percent, of applicants with a criminal record had 
crimes from States other than where they were applying to work. In 
other words, but for the existence of the Child Safety Pilot Program, 
employers may not have known that their applicants had a criminal 
record.
  The bill Senator Hatch and I introduce today will extend the Child 
Safety Pilot Program for an additional 30-month period. It will also 
change the original program so that more youth-serving organizations 
can participate, and will shorten the timeframe given to the FBI in 
which to return the results of the background check. We are pleased 
that our bill has been endorsed by the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 
the National Mentoring Partnership, and the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children.
  I would like to thank those who have made this program such a 
success. Specifically, Ernie Allen and his team at the National Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children have generously provided staff and 
equipment and have served as a clearinghouse to process background 
check requests. Robbie Callaway and Steve Salem of the Boys & Girls 
Clubs of America originally came up with this idea, and have provided 
tireless advocacy on its behalf. And Margo Pedroso of the National 
Mentoring Partnership has been invaluable in making Members of Congress 
and the general public aware of the need for an affordable, efficient 
national criminal history background check system. Without her, this 
program would never have been created.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Child Safety Pilot Program Act, 
and I look forward to its prompt consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 1963. A bill to make miscellaneous improvements to trade 
adjustment assistance; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act of 2005.
  I want to begin with some simple facts about international trade. The 
benefits of trade are vast in absolute terms, but so diffuse that 
individuals are generally unaware of how much they personally gain from 
trade. By contrast, the harms from trade, while small in absolute 
terms, are localized and intense.
  Research shows that, on average, a worker who loses his job due to 
trade will make 17 percent less in his new job. The older the worker 
and the lower his level of education, the larger the lifetime wage cut 
he is likely to experience.
  With statistics like these, is it any wonder that workers who believe 
their jobs are at risk from international competition are skeptical 
about trade? With increasing numbers of Americans feeling vulnerable in 
the global economy--even though many of them will never lose their jobs 
because of trade--the potential pool of trade skeptics is growing.
  There is a solution.
  In a June 2002 poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign 
Relations and Harris Interactive, respondents were asked which of three 
positions most closely reflects their views on international trade. 
Nearly three quarters of those surveyed, 73 percent, agreed with this 
statement: ``I favor free trade, and I believe that it is necessary for 
the government to have programs to help workers who lose their jobs.'' 
Sixteen percent said they favored free trade and did not think it 
necessary for the government to help those who lose their jobs. Nine 
percent said they do not favor free trade.
  The results were even more striking in a 1999 poll conducted by the 
Program on International Policy and Attitudes at the University of 
Maryland. In that poll, 87 percent of participants agreed with this 
statement: ``I would favor more free trade, if I was confident that we 
were making major efforts to educate and retrain Americans to be 
competitive in the global economy.'' Only 11 percent disagreed.
  If there is a more compelling case to be made for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance, I do not know what it is.
  For more than 40 years, TAA has been providing retraining, income 
support, and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to 
trade. Montana workers tell me that TAA has been a lifeline, making it 
possible for them to gain new skills and start new careers rather than 
merely survive a layoff.
  In the Trade Act of 2002, I spearheaded the most comprehensive 
expansion and overhaul of the TAA program since 1974. We expanded the 
kinds of workers who are eligible for TAA benefits. We added new 
benefits like wage insurance and the health coverage tax credit. We 
also streamlined the application deadlines to get workers enrolled and 
retraining sooner.
  I am proud of this landmark legislation. It unified a splintered TAA 
program to create a single, comprehensive set of benefits.
  Like most successful legislation, however, it was the product of 
compromise. While TAA was expanded to cover secondary workers, it was 
not expanded to cover service workers. While we added new benefits, we 
also added eligibility tests for those new benefits that have proven 
burdensome and unduly restrictive in practice. While we made more 
workers eligible for training, we did not provide training funds 
adequate to serve those workers.
  In order for TAA to truly meet the needs of displaced workers, it 
needs to be a lot more user-friendly. This bill accomplishes that goal 
by eliminating barriers to entry that, in practice, defeat the purpose 
of TAA. The bill's goal is simple: to get every trade-displaced worker 
who needs a new start into meaningful training and back into the 
workforce at comparable wages.
  The TAA Improvements Act makes the following changes to TAA:
  First, it provides that all deadlines and time limits for applying 
for benefits are suspended when workers are appealing the Department of 
Labor's denial of a TAA eligibility petition. According to DOL 
statistics, in 2004 DOL denied approximately 35 percent of the TAA 
petitions on which it ruled. Among the TAA petition denials appealed to 
the Court of International Trade in the past several years, the vast 
majority have been reversed. Numerous judges on the Court have 
expressed growing impatience with the Labor Department's propensity to 
stick by denials for years until workers--ultimately vindicated through

[[Page 24952]]

protracted litigation--lose the ability to receive full benefits. This 
bill rectifies the problem by allowing workers who successfully appeal 
denials of their TAA petitions to receive the benefits to which they 
are entitled regardless of intervening deadlines.
  Second, the bill creates a TAA Petition Adviser within the Department 
of Labor to assist workers and those who prepare TAA petitions on their 
behalf. Most workers and employers who prepare TAA petitions have no 
experience with the program and seldom have access to experienced 
counsel. The petition form itself, while improved over prior versions, 
provides little guidance on the kinds of factual information upon which 
DOL bases eligibility determinations. As the Court of International 
Trade has found on numerous occasions, the Department's practice is to 
do little, if any, investigation beyond the facts presented on the 
petition. Accordingly, if an inexperienced group of workers fails to 
say ``the magic words'', their petition is likely to be turned down. 
The new Petition Adviser would be responsible for assisting workers to 
prepare petitions by advising them on the kinds of information that are 
necessary to demonstrate TAA eligibility--eliminating much of the 
guesswork that can turn applying for TAA into a game of roulette.
  Sadly, not all employers make their best efforts to help their 
displaced workers qualify for TAA. Employers who prepare TAA 
applications for their workers may assign the task to Human Resources 
staff, who may lack sufficient knowledge to provide the appropriate 
information to the Labor Department. They sometimes provide inaccurate 
or incomplete evidence that prevents DOL from certifying the workers. 
The bill addresses this problem by requiring that all information 
provided to DOL by the petitioning workers' employer be certified as to 
its completeness and accuracy by counsel or by an officer of the 
company. This requirement assures that petitions will receive high-
level management attention and, in the case of counsel, imposes an 
external ethical check.
  In the Trade Act of 2002, Congress had the wisdom to create a program 
of wage insurance, called Alternative TAA. Unlike traditional TAA, 
which requires a worker to remain unemployed until training is 
completed, wage insurance creates an incentive for workers to return to 
work sooner and train on the job. It does so by assuring the worker 
that, if the new job pays less than the old one, he can receive a 
subsidy equal up to half the wage differential up to $10,000 over two 
years. This innovative program has the potential to facilitate the most 
effective kind of training, reduce worker transition time, and reduce 
the per-worker cost of adjustment assistance.
  Experience under the Trade Act of 2002 indicates low participation in 
this program, both because it is limited to workers over 50 and because 
the steps a worker needs to take to choose wage insurance have proved 
difficult to satisfy. This bill streamlines the application process for 
alternative TAA and lowers the minimum age for participating workers 
from 50 to 40--the average age of TAA participants.
  The Trade Act of 2002 expanded TAA eligibility to include so-called 
``shifts in production''--when a plant in the United States closes and 
moves overseas. The law makes eligibility automatic when production 
shifts to a country with which the United States has a free trade 
agreement or a unilateral preference program. But when production 
shifts to another country--such as China or India--workers must satisfy 
additional criteria before they are eligible.
  This limitation is one of the compromises that shaped the Trade Act 
of 2002. But I have never thought it fair or equitable. A worker whose 
plant moves overseas has the same adjustment needs no matter where the 
plant relocated. The TAA Improvement Act eliminates this distinction, 
making eligibility for TAA automatic for shifts in production to any 
country. It also eliminates a similar provision that limits coverage of 
certain secondary workers to trade with Canada and Mexico.
  In a recent review of the TAA program, the Government Accountability 
Office noted that inflexible training enrollment deadlines have made it 
difficult for workers to make timely and informed decisions about their 
training plans and career options. Experience has shown that the 
deadlines we set may be too short in some cases. Community colleges, 
the principal providers of TAA training services, often enroll students 
only twice a year, making it difficult for some workers to enroll in 
the courses they need within the applicable deadlines. Even the most 
motivated among laid-off workers find it difficult to do the research 
and soul-searching necessary to make informed and sensible choices 
about retraining in the time provided. For these reasons, this bill 
extends the training enrollment deadline by several weeks.
  Perhaps the single most important problem facing the TAA program 
today is the chronic shortage in training funds. Every year, there are 
states that run out of training funds and are forced to ration 
training. In some cases, states have even stopped workers from 
enrolling, which can reduce the total TAA benefits the worker can 
receive even if funds later become available. The Department of Labor 
has wisely issued guidelines to states to help them better manage their 
training resources. But the truth of the matter is that Congress has 
failed to provide states with enough training funds to adequately serve 
the number of people who qualify for retraining. Rather than cap 
training spending each year at an arbitrary amount arrived at through 
political negotiations, this bill sets the training budget with 
reference to program enrollment and average per person training costs.
  The bill also gives the Department of Labor flexibility to steer 
workers into some less traditional but practical training options. Many 
workers who go through the TAA program ultimately end up self-employed. 
Under the Workforce Investment Act, a general retraining program for 
dislocated workers, workers can participate in entrepreneurial training 
that prepares them for self-employment. This bill extends the same 
option to workers in the TAA program. More than 10 percent of TAA 
participants are not native English speakers. Because English 
proficiency is a prerequisite for most occupational training courses, 
these workers are generally steered into English language classes and 
tend to use up their training benefits before receiving occupational 
training. Under WIA, the Department of Labor has recently begun 
promoting ``integrated workforce training,'' which combines 
occupational training with job-related English proficiency. My bill 
allows the same kind of training to be provided under TAA.
  For workers entering the TAA program, the most important service they 
receive is guidance from case workers provided by the state. These case 
workers help displaced workers learn about local career options, make 
informed choices about training programs, prepare necessary paperwork 
and meet deadlines for TAA income support and other benefits. They keep 
workers from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous training 
providers who prey on confused dislocated workers and make sure workers 
know about all the benefits to which they are entitled.
  Because TAA is a federal program delegated to the states, the federal 
government provides the states with funding to meet the program's 
administrative costs. According to a survey by the GAO, however, the 
cost of providing case worker services far exceeds the amount that the 
federal government provides. States must either divert money from other 
training programs or skimp on the services they provide to workers 
under TAA. The goal of TAA is to have workers make sensible choices 
about training that will lead to successful new careers. My bill makes 
that possible by requiring the federal government to provide the states 
with adequate funds to meet these critical administrative costs.
  This legislation requires the Department of Labor to improve its data 
collection and to disseminate more information about the operation of 
the TAA program. Better and more accessible

[[Page 24953]]

data will permit Congress and the public to more accurately assess the 
program's successes and failures and make it easier for workers to 
prepare successful petitions.
  Finally, this legislation makes some needed changes to the TAA for 
Farmers program. For many years, Congress and the Labor Department 
tried--unsuccessfully to shoehorn farmers into the traditional TAA 
program. But the adjustment issues facing American farmers from global 
competition are fundamentally different than those facing manufacturing 
workers. In the Trade Act of 2002, we created TAA for Farmers by 
modifying the eligibility criteria and benefits package to more closely 
meet the needs of agricultural producers.
  Congress dedicated $90 million annually to this program, with the 
intention of helping farmers to become more competitive before losing 
their farms. After several years in operation, however, much of the 
money provided by Congress has not been spent. The legislation I am 
introducing today fine tunes the eligibility criteria, based on 
experience, to eliminate some of the pitfalls that have excluded some 
crops from the program.
  The Trade Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act is the fourth in a 
series of bills I have recently introduced to improve and reform TAA. 
The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Reorganization Act, S. 1308, 
makes needed changes to the management structure of TAA for Firms at 
the Department of Commerce. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for 
Service Workers Act, S. 1309, extends TAA to the 80 percent of American 
workers in the service sector. The Trade Adjustment Assistance for 
Industries Act, S. 1444, simplifies the TAA petition process and ties 
TAA more closely to displacements caused by specific trade agreements.
  In the future, I plan to introduce additional legislation addressing 
the TAA health coverage tax credit. HCTC is a critical new benefit 
added to the TAA package in 2002. As with many new programs, the 
implementation process for HCTC has been bumpy. Armed with several 
years of experience and several objective studies of the program, the 
time has come to start smoothing out those bumps by revisiting the 
structure and operation of the HCTC. This further legislation should be 
ready for introduction in the coming months.
  Whenever I speak about the need to expand and improve TAA, the first 
question I usually get is: how much will it cost? Clearly, my proposals 
will add to the cost of the program and I will ask CBO to provide a 
score. But the strong implication of this common question is that we 
cannot afford to add to the cost of the TAA program. I think that is 
the wrong starting point.
  First, we need to put the cost of TAA in perspective. At present, TAA 
costs around one billion dollars per year to operate. That is a cost of 
less than $10 per American household per year. By contrast, a study by 
the Institute for International Economics recently concluded that the 
American economy is roughly $1 trillion per year better off thanks to 
global integration, which comes to about $9,000 in extra income every 
year for each American household. Looking at these figures, we should 
be embarrassed at the paltry fraction of the economic gains from trade 
that we are plowing back into adjusting and retraining our workforce.
  The truth is, the United States as a country cannot afford not to 
make these changes. We need to be putting more resources into worker 
retraining. We need to make sure we do not marginalize an entire 
generation of manufacturing workers.
  Now more than ever, we have to prepare workers for the challenges of 
the global market. The domestic auto industry faces unprecedented 
challenges to remain competitive in today's world. In October alone, a 
major auto parts supplier filed for bankruptcy, General Motors slashed 
wages and legacy benefits, and the Ford Motor Company announced 
substantial layoffs. Thousands of specialized workers will be displaced 
and have to start over.
  At the same time, I continue to read warnings of an impending labor 
shortage--even in the manufacturing sector. Baby boomers will soon 
begin retiring in large numbers. Our educational system is not turning 
out enough new workers with the skills our employers need to succeed in 
global competition. I have seen estimates of a shortage of 20 million 
workers by 2020--with the most severe shortages in the most skilled 
jobs.
  Economists estimate that increasing the education level of American 
workers by one year would increase productivity by 8.5 percent in 
manufacturing and 12.7 percent in nonmanufacturing industries. Is 
expanding TAA too high a price to pay to address the coming labor 
shortage and to achieve productivity gains on this order? I certainly 
do not think so.
  Experts with a wide range of views on issues surrounding trade and 
competitiveness agree that, if our nation is to thrive in the global 
economy of the 21st century, we must expand our worker adjustment 
program. From Jagdish Bagwati to Tom Friedman, from Alan Greenspan to 
the AFL-CIO--there is near universal agreement on this point. I believe 
the legislation I have introduced today and over the past weeks creates 
a strong platform to build on and I will work to see these bills 
enacted into law.
  But trade adjustment for workers alone cannot prepare America for the 
competitive challenges ahead. We must aggressively pursue our interests 
through the trade agreements we negotiate with other countries, and we 
must enforce them just as aggressively. Recently I laid out my vision 
for closer congressional oversight of trade enforcement by the United 
States Trade Representative. I intend to introdue legislation to 
address the need for better, more aggressive enforcement of our trade 
agreements. Finally, I believe that our global competitiveness strategy 
must go beyond trade negotiations. Over the course of several months, I 
have highlighted many opportunities to enhance our global 
competitiveness in areas such as healthcare, energy, education, and 
savings. We must prepare the American people to take full advantage of 
these opportunities and many more.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1963

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act of 2005''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                  TITLE I--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

Sec. 101. Calculation of separation tolled during litigation.
Sec. 102. Establishment of Trade Adjustment Assistance Advisor.
Sec. 103. Certification of submissions.
Sec. 104. Revision of eligibility criteria.
Sec. 105. Training.
Sec. 106. Funding for administrative costs.
Sec. 107. Authorization of appropriations.

                       TITLE II--DATA COLLECTION

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Data collection; study; information to workers.
Sec. 203. Determinations by the Secretary of Labor.

           TITLE III--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS

Sec. 301. Clarification of marketing year and other provisions.
Sec. 302. Eligibility.

                  TITLE I--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 101. CALCULATION OF SEPARATION TOLLED DURING LITIGATION.

       Section 233 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Special Rule for Calculating Separation.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any 
     period during which a judicial or administrative appeal is 
     pending with respect to the denial by the Secretary of a 
     petition under section 223 shall not be counted for purposes 
     of calculating the period of separation under subsection 
     (a)(2) and an adversely affected worker that would otherwise 
     be entitled to a trade readjustment allowance shall not be 
     denied such allowance because of such appeal.''.

     SEC. 102. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE 
                   ADVISOR.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 2 of title II of 
     the Trade Act of 1974 is amended

[[Page 24954]]

     by inserting after section 221, the following new section:

     ``SEC. 221A. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE 
                   ADVISOR.

       ``(a) In General.--There is established in the Department 
     of Labor an office to be known as the `Office of the Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance Advisor'. The Office shall be headed by 
     a Director, who shall be responsible for providing assistance 
     and advice to any person or entity described in section 
     221(a)(1) desiring to file a petition for certification of 
     eligibility under section 221.
       ``(b) Technical Assistance.--The Director shall coordinate 
     with each agency responsible for providing adjustment 
     assistance under this chapter or chapter 6 and shall provide 
     technical and legal assistance and advice to enable persons 
     or entities described in section 221(a)(1) to prepare and 
     file petitions for certification under section 221.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents for title 
     II of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 221, the following:

``Sec. 221A. Establishment of Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance 
              Advisor.''.

     SEC. 103. CERTIFICATION OF SUBMISSIONS.

       Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Certification of Submissions.--If an employer submits 
     a petition on behalf of a group of workers pursuant to 
     section 221(a)(1) or if the Secretary requests evidence or 
     information from an employer in order to make a determination 
     under this section, the accuracy and completeness of any 
     evidence or information submitted by the employer shall be 
     certified by the employer's legal counsel or by an officer of 
     the employer.''.

     SEC. 104. REVISION OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.

       (a) Shifts in Production.--Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 (U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)(B)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) there has been a shift in production by such workers' 
     firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or 
     directly competitive with articles which are produced by such 
     firm or subdivision.''.
       (b) Wage Insurance.--
       (1) In general.--Section 246(a)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2318(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Eligibility.--A worker in a group that the Secretary 
     has certified as eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
     under section 223 may elect to receive benefits under the 
     alternative trade adjustment assistance program if the 
     worker--
       ``(A) obtains reemployment not more than 26 weeks after the 
     date of separation from the adversely affected employment;
       ``(B) is at least 40 years of age;
       ``(C) earns not more than $50,000 a year in wages from 
     reemployment;
       ``(D) is employed on a full-time basis as defined by State 
     law in the State in which the worker is employed; and
       ``(E) does not return to the employment from which the 
     worker was separated.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 246(a)(2) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2318(a)(2)) are amended by 
     striking ``paragraph (3)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)'' 
     each place it appears.
       (B) Section 246(b)(2) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``subsection (a)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(3)''.
       (c) Downstream Workers.--Section 222(c)(3) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 (19 (U.S.C. 2272(c)(3)) is amended by striking ``, if 
     the certification of eligibility'' and all that follows to 
     the end period.

     SEC. 105. TRAINING.

       (a) Modification of Enrollment Deadlines.--Section 
     231(a)(5)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2291(a)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I), by striking ``16th week'' and 
     inserting ``26th week''; and
       (2) in subclause (II), by striking ``8th week'' and 
     inserting ``20th week''.
       (b) Extension of Allowance to Accommodate Training.--
     Section 233 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Extension of Allowance.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, a trade readjustment allowance may 
     be paid to a worker for a number of additional weeks equal to 
     the number of weeks the worker's enrollment in training was 
     delayed beyond the deadline applicable under section 
     231(a)(5)(A)(ii) pursuant to a waiver granted under section 
     231(c)(1)(E).''.
       (c) Funding for Training.--Section 236(a) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2296(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``Upon such approval'' and 
     all that follows to the end; and
       (2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2)(A) Upon approval of a training program under 
     paragraph (l), and subject to the limitations imposed by this 
     section, an adversely affected worker covered by a 
     certification issued under section 223 shall be eligible to 
     have payment of the costs of that training, including any 
     costs of an approved training program incurred by a worker 
     before a certification was issued under section 223, made on 
     behalf of the worker by the Secretary directly or through a 
     voucher system.
       ``(B) Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment 
     of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act of 2005, 
     the Secretary shall develop and submit to Congress for 
     approval a formula that provides workers with an individual 
     entitlement for training costs to be administered pursuant to 
     sections 239 and 240. The formula shall take into account--
       ``(i) the number of workers enrolled in trade adjustment 
     assistance;
       ``(ii) the duration of the assistance;
       ``(iii) the anticipated training costs for workers; and
       ``(iv) any other factors the Secretary deems appropriate.
       ``(C) Until such time as Congress approves the formula, the 
     total amount of payments that may be made under subparagraph 
     (A) for any fiscal year shall not exceed fifty percent of the 
     amount of trade readjustment allowances paid to workers 
     during that fiscal year.''.
       (d) Approved Training Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Section 236(a)(5) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2296(a)(5)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (H); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) integrated workforce training;
       ``(G) entrepreneurial training; and''.
       (2) Definition.--Section 247 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2319) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(18) The term `integrated workforce training' means 
     training that integrates occupational skills training with 
     English language acquisition.''.

     SEC. 106. FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

       Section 241 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2313) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Funds provided by the Secretary to a State to cover 
     administrative costs associated with the performance of a 
     State's responsibilities under section 239 shall be 
     sufficient to cover all costs of the State associated with 
     operating the trade adjustment assistance program, including 
     case worker costs.''.

     SEC. 107. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 245(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2317(a)) is amended by striking ``2007'' and 
     inserting ``2012''.
       (b) Firms.--Section 256(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$16,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$32,000,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2012''.
       (c) Farmers.--Section 298(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2401g(a)) is amended by striking ``2007'' and 
     inserting ``2012''.

                       TITLE II--DATA COLLECTION

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance Accountability Act''.

     SEC. 202. DATA COLLECTION; STUDY; INFORMATION TO WORKERS.

       (a) Data Collection; Evaluations.--Subchapter C of chapter 
     2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by 
     inserting after section 249, the following new section:

     ``SEC. 250. DATA COLLECTION; EVALUATIONS; REPORTS.

       ``(a) Data Collection.--The Secretary shall, pursuant to 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, collect any data 
     necessary to meet the requirements of this chapter.
       ``(b) Performance Evaluations.--The Secretary shall 
     establish an effective performance measuring system to 
     evaluate the following:
       ``(1) Program performance.--A comparison of the trade 
     adjustment assistance program before and after the effective 
     date of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 
     with respect to--
       ``(A) the number of workers certified and the number of 
     workers actually participating in the trade adjustment 
     assistance program;
       ``(B) the time for processing petitions;
       ``(C) the number of training waivers granted;
       ``(D) the coordination of programs under this chapter with 
     programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2801 et seq.);
       ``(E) the effectiveness of individual training providers in 
     providing appropriate information and training;
       ``(F) the extent to which States have designed and 
     implemented health care coverage options under title II of 
     the Trade Act of 2002, including any difficulties States have 
     encountered in carrying out the provisions of title II;
       ``(G) how Federal, State, and local officials are 
     implementing the trade adjustment assistance program to 
     ensure that all eligible individuals receive benefits, 
     including providing outreach, rapid response, and other 
     activities; and
       ``(H) any other data necessary to evaluate how individual 
     States are implementing the requirements of this chapter.
       ``(2) Program participation.--The effectiveness of the 
     program relating to--
       ``(A) the number of workers receiving benefits and the type 
     of benefits being received

[[Page 24955]]

     both before and after the effective date of the Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002;
       ``(B) the number of workers enrolled in, and the duration 
     of, training by major types of training both before and after 
     the effective date of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform 
     Act of 2002;
       ``(C) earnings history of workers that reflects wages 
     before separation and wages in any job obtained after 
     receiving benefits under this Act;
       ``(D) reemployment rates and sectors in which dislocated 
     workers have been employed;
       ``(E) the cause of dislocation identified in each petition 
     that resulted in a certification under this chapter; and
       ``(F) the number of petitions filed and workers certified 
     in each congressional district of the United States.
       ``(c) State Participation.--The Secretary shall ensure, to 
     the extent practicable, through oversight and effective 
     internal control measures the following:
       ``(1) State participation.--Participation by each State in 
     the performance measurement system established under 
     subsection (b) and shall provide incentives for States to 
     supplement employment and wage data obtained through the use 
     of unemployment insurance wage records.
       ``(2) Monitoring.--Monitoring by each State of internal 
     control measures with respect to performance measurement data 
     collected by each State.
       ``(3) Response.--The quality and speed of the rapid 
     response provided by each State under section 134(a)(2)(A) of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     2864(a)(2)(A)).
       ``(d) Reports.--
       ``(1) Reports by the secretary.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     Accountability Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of the House of Representatives a report that--
       ``(i) describes the performance measurement system 
     established under subsection (b);
       ``(ii) includes analysis of data collected through the 
     system established under subsection (b); and
       ``(iii) provides recommendations for program improvements.
       ``(B) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     the report is submitted under subparagraph (A), and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives and release to the public a 
     report that includes the information collected under clause 
     (ii) of subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) State reports.--Pursuant to regulations prescribed by 
     the Secretary, each State shall submit to the Secretary a 
     report that details its participation in the programs 
     established under this chapter, and that contains the data 
     necessary to allow the Secretary to submit the report 
     required under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Publication.--The Secretary shall make available to 
     each State, to Congress, and to the public, the data gathered 
     and evaluated through the performance measurement system 
     established under subsection (b).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Coordination.--Section 281 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2392) is amended by striking ``Departments of Labor 
     and Commerce'' and inserting ``Departments of Labor, 
     Commerce, and Agriculture''.
       (2) Trade monitoring system.--Section 282 of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2393) is amended by striking ``The 
     Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor'' and 
     inserting ``The Secretaries of Commerce, Labor, and 
     Agriculture''.
       (3) Table of contents.--The table of contents for title II 
     of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 249, the following new item:

``Sec. 250. Data collection; evaluations; reports.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 203. DETERMINATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR.

       Section 223(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273(c)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Publication of Determinations.--Upon reaching a 
     determination on a petition, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) promptly publish a summary of the determination in 
     the Federal Register together with the Secretary's reasons 
     for making such determination; and
       ``(2) make the full text of the determination available to 
     the public on the Internet website of the Department of Labor 
     with full-text searchability.''.

           TITLE III--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS

     SEC. 301. CLARIFICATION OF MARKETING YEAR AND OTHER 
                   PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 291(5) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2401(5)) is amended by inserting before the end 
     period the following: ``, or in the case of an agricultural 
     commodity that has no officially designated marketing year, 
     in a 12-month period for which the petitioner provides 
     written request''.
       (b) Fishermen.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     for purposes of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) fishermen who harvest wild 
     stock shall be eligible for adjustment assistance to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as a group of workers under 
     such chapter 2.

     SEC. 302. ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 292(c)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2401a(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``80 percent'' 
     and inserting ``90 percent''.
       (b) Net Farm Income.--Section 296(a)(1)(C) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2401e(a)(1)(C)) is amended by inserting 
     before the end period the following: ``or the producer had no 
     positive net farm income for the 2 most recent consecutive 
     years in which no adjustment assistance was received by the 
     producer under this chapter''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 964. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the determination and deduction of interest on qualified education 
loans; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, every year, the cost of higher education 
and vocational education increases dramatically. College tuition and 
fees have been rising more rapidly than household income over the past 
two decades. The divergence is particularly pronounced for low-income 
households. The sad result is that with every year more students and 
families are forced to decide whether they can afford higher education 
while knowing their choice is limited by price. It is imperative that 
Congress work to make higher education more accessible to all.
  Our Nation must make a solid commitment to ensure that every 
individual has the opportunity to pursue higher education, and our 
policies should reflect this commitment. Education has always been the 
great equalizer in our society that provides every American the same 
opportunity to succeed. That is why today I, along with Senator 
Schumer, am introducing legislation that would provide for a simpler, 
more borrower-friendly method for reporting and deducting capitalized 
interest and origination fees in connection with qualified education 
loans.
  In May 2004, the Treasury Department issued final regulations with 
respect to the student loan interest deduction under the tax code. 
Among other things, these Treasury regulations provide that the 
``original issue discount rules'' (OID) shall apply for purposes of 
students claiming this deduction. In particular, they would apply to 
the portion of the student loan that relates to federally mandated 
student loan origination fees and the capitalized interest that does 
not accrue on the loan while the student attends school (i.e., the 
government essentially pays this interest for the student on the loan 
during the years the student attends school).
  OID rules are complicated and confusing. In general, these rules 
attempt to prevent taxpayers from claiming inflated interest deductions 
stemming from debt obligations. When a borrower issues a debt 
obligation at a discount, that is the note's face amount exceeds the 
amount that the lender advances to the borrower, the amount of the 
discount represents additional interest on the obligation. The OID 
rules reflect Congress' attempt to square the tax treatment of this 
unstated or disguised interest into conformity with economic reality.
  The OID rules, then, ``limit'' a borrower's tax deduction because 
whereas the tax code generally permits borrowers to deduct the interest 
they pay on debt obligations, such as student loans, the tax code 
generally prevents borrowers from deducting any OID they might pay on 
such debt.
  For example, assume that a corporation issues thirty-year bonds with 
a face value of $1,000 each and, according to their terms, paying 10 
percent interest each year. Assume, though, that the corporation 
actually sells these bonds to investors for $850 because the 10 percent 
interest rate is below market rates. Under these facts, there is $150, 
$1,000 - $850, that the corporation essentially is ``re-classifying'' 
as interest that it will pay to the investor;

[[Page 24956]]

that is, the investors would not be satisfied with a 10 percent return 
upon giving the corporation $1,000 so that the corporation essentially 
treats a portion of the principle, $150, as interest.
  The tax code classifies this $150 as OID. The $150 of OID serves the 
same function as the stated annual interest of $100, 10 percent of 
$1,000. As such, the $150 of OID is an additional cost to the 
corporation in borrowing $850 from the investor, and it is additional 
compensation that the corporation pays to the lender for lending that 
amount. The only differences to the parties are that the corporation is 
not required to pay the OID of $150 until the bond matures and that the 
investor does not receive the discount in cash until then, unless the 
bond is sold in the interim.
  As I noted earlier, the OID rules prevent borrowers from deducting 
the entire amount of ``interest'' they pay to a borrower on a loan. 
Specifically, in the previous example, although the parties treat the 
loan principle as being $850, the application of the OID rules treats 
the loan as $1,000, which is significant because it means the IRS 
classifies the $150 of OID as not being interest. In turn, the borrower 
cannot deduct this $150 payment to the borrower because it is a return 
of principle on the loan rather than interest.
  Consequently, applying OID rules to student loans would have several 
negative effects. First, with respect to students, they would not be 
able to deduct the entire amount of ``interest'' they pay to their 
lender. In general, whereas the tax code generally permits students to 
deduct student loan interest, subject to certain limitations, it does 
not permit taxpayers to deduct OID. The Treasury regulations, then, 
will reduce the cash flow of students who are repaying student loans by 
limiting their student loan interest deduction.
  In addition, applying the OID rules will have an enormous impact on 
the compliance burden. Indeed, the interaction of the OID rules and the 
loan provisions of the Higher Education Act greatly magnifies the 
complexity of rules that lenders must follow. As such, lenders and 
servicers will be forced to create accounting systems, at enormous 
expenses that ultimately will be passed on to student borrowers, to 
enable them to track and report the origination fees and capitalized 
interest in accordance with the OID rules. Furthermore, given that 
there is no track record of applying the OID rules to student lenders, 
there is no guarantee that they can preform these tasks accurately.
  Congress enacted the OID rules to prevent taxpayers, mostly large 
corporations, from altering the terms of loan agreements to claim 
inflated interest deduction. Clearly, applying them to student loans is 
unreasonable and frankly unintended.
  To remedy this problem, my legislation would permit lenders to 
account for the OID treatment of student loans under the ``immediate 
accrual method, which colloquially is referred to as the ``bucket 
method.'' Under this approach, the origination fee would accrue as soon 
as it is charged to or paid by the borrower, and capitalized interest 
would accrue under the terms of the promissory note. Accrued 
origination fee and capitalized interest would go into a ``bucket'' as 
soon as they accrue, until such time as the borrower begins to make 
payments on the loan. Amounts in the ``bucket'' would be applied 
against principal payments until the bucket is empty. Capitalized 
interest and origination fees would be reported to and deductible by 
the eligible taxpayer in the year in which they are paid.
  My legislation would, as I stated, provide for a simpler, more 
borrower-friendly method for reporting and deducting capitalized 
interest and origination fees in connection with qualified education 
loans. Consequently, it would not reduce the need to engage in the 
burdensome task of calculating the OID on loans, and the student 
borrowers would be able to deduct more of the interest they pay.
  This bill is good policy and common sense. Senator Schumer and I look 
forward to working with Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Ranking 
Member Baucus in seeking swift action to resolve this issue.

                          ____________________