[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14017-14048]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            EXTENDING THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2832, which the clerk will report by 
title.
  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.
       Hatch amendment No. 641 (to amendment No. 633), to make the 
     effective date of the amendments expanding the Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance Program contingent on the enactment of 
     the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
     Act, the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement 
     Implementation Act, and the United States-Panama Trade 
     Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                 Amendment No. 625 to Amendment No. 633

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 625. 
I ask unanimous consent that it be made the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 625 to amendment No. 633.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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:

(Purpose: To extend trade adjustment assistance as in effect before the 
enactment of the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance of 2009)

       Strike title II and insert the following:

                 TITLE II--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

       Title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) 
     (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and without regard to any substitution made by 
     section 1893(b) of the Trade and Globalization Adjustment 
     Assistance Act of 2009 (19 U.S.C. 2271 note prec.)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 245, by striking ``2007'' and inserting 
     ``2014'';
       (2) in section 246(b)(1), by striking ``the date that is 5 
     years'' and all that follows through ``State'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2014'';
       (3) in section 256(b), by striking ``each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2007, and $4,000,000 for the 3-month period 
     beginning October 1, 2007'' and inserting ``each of fiscal 
     years 2012 through 2014, and $4,000,000 for the 3-month 
     period beginning October 1, 2014'';
       (4) in section 285, by striking ``2007'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``2014''; and
       (5) in section 298(a)--
       (A) by striking ``2003 through 2007'' and inserting ``2012 
     through 2014''; and
       (B) by striking ``October 1, 2007'' and inserting ``October 
     1, 2014''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment would authorize the 
continuation of trade adjustment assistance or TAA for 2 additional 
years at the level of funding the program maintained prior to the 2009 
stimulus package addition. Prior to the stimulus, passed by this body 
in 2009, the TAA Program cost taxpayers about $1 billion per year.
  The passage of the stimulus package, which was advertised to be a 
temporary injection into the economy--a temporary injection--the 
stimulus was increased and expanded to the program at a cost of about 
$2 billion in 2010; according to the Department of Labor estimates, 
$2.4 billion in 2011, if the stimulus expansions were allowed to remain 
in place.
  I would remind my colleagues that with the stimulus package, these 
were a one-time deal, and once the money was spent, then those programs 
lapsed. Apparently not so with the TAA Program. We do not yet have a 
cost score for the Reid substitute before us, but estimates indicate 
the TAA agreement may lock in at least 65 percent of the 2009 stimulus 
expansions for the next several years.
  That is approximately, in my calculation, at least a $600 million 
additional cost per year to the taxpayers

[[Page 14018]]

for maintaining 65 percent of the stimulus level of TAA. Architects of 
the agreement will say these provisions sunset at the end of 2014. But 
we all know sunsets can be fiction. So we are talking about 2012, 2013, 
and 2014. That is about, roughly, a minimum of $1.2 billion of 
additional spending on the dubious--at least in my mind dubious--
benefits of the TAA Program.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have long insisted that the 
price of passing trade agreements in Congress is passing TAA and other 
programs similar to it, domestic spending legislation geared to assist 
U.S. workers who have been adversely affected by foreign trade.
  For this reason, in 2002, Congress passed the TAA legislation that 
provided short-term temporary support for worker retraining and other 
assistance. Many Republicans, including myself, were skeptical about 
whether this program and others like it achieved their goals. But we 
went along for the sake of our national interests and expanding free 
trade.
  In 2009, without any action taken on our three pending trade 
agreements, the stimulus package dramatically increased the TAA Program 
as part of the stimulus bill and increased spending on this program 
annually by approximately $1 billion. In essence, a program that was 
designed to assist workers who had been adversely affected by free 
trade was transformed into a domestic spending program for reasons that 
had nothing at all to do with expanding free trade.
  What is worse, after repeatedly claiming it supports the free-trade 
agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea, the White House earlier 
this year announced that the cost of its support was reauthorization of 
the new TAA with funding set not at the original 2002 level but the 
2009 stimulus level.
  So we had a program that had been expanded from its original cost 
under the dubious guise of a temporary economic stimulus, and then we 
were told this temporary funding increase, which was designed to expire 
along with the stimulus, should, in effect, be turned into a permanent 
domestic spending program.
  After much discussion and debate, there now appears to be a proposal 
to reauthorize TAA and fund it somewhere between the prestimulus and 
poststimulus levels. This proposal is contained in the substitute 
amendment offered by the majority leader. Some would say this is a good 
deal and Republicans should accept it. Others say trade adjustment 
assistance is ineffective and unproven and Congress should kill it 
altogether.
  I am very dubious about the benefits of TAA. But I understand also 
what is doable around here and what is not. So I am offering this 
amendment as a matter of principle. As I have said many times on the 
floor of this body, I am not opposed to TAA nor do I seek to kill it. I 
read the same media reports as my colleagues, which suggest that the 
White House is holding hostage the trade agreements with South Korea, 
Colombia, and Panama until Congress passes TAA.
  Many of us do not like this. Many of us think this is contrary to our 
national and economic interests. But it is a fact. So I recognize, as 
in the past, that Congress should reauthorize TAA. The question is, How 
much of the taxpayers' money should we spend to do it?
  That is why I am offering this amendment. I believe Congress should 
reauthorize it because we are being compelled to do so, but I also 
believe we should reauthorize this program at its prestimulus funding 
levels.
  Let me explain why. The following are the temporary expansions to TAA 
that were included in the stimulus, which cost about $2 billion in 
2010, and, according to the Department of Labor, was estimated to cost 
approximately $2.4 billion in 2011 if the 2009 stimulus expansions had 
stayed in place.
  The stimulus expanded TAA to cover workers whose employers shifted 
production to any foreign country, not just those--as under prior law--
whose jobs were outsourced to countries with which the United States 
has a free-trade agreement.
  It expanded TAA coverage to the service sector and government 
employees who lose their jobs because of trade.
  It increased the tax credit available to cover private health 
insurance premiums from 65 percent to 80. It increased the 
appropriations cap for training from $220 million to $575 million, a 
160-percent increase over the previous cap.
  It created the Community TAA Program, which authorizes $230 million 
for trade-affected communities to assist in strategic planning grants 
up to $5 million, sector partnership grants up to $3 million over a 3-
year period, and community college and career training grants up to $1 
million.
  It gave $17.5 million to States for employment and case management. 
It lengthened the amount of time workers could receive trade 
readjustment allowance assistance by 26 weeks.
  Finally, it revived the TAA for farmers and the wage insurance 
program, estimated by CBO to total about $100 million for 2 years.
  So we had a program that had been expanded from its original intent, 
with benefits going to government employees, service sector employees, 
TAA benefits going to communities, TAA benefits going to farms, TAA 
benefits going to firms, under the dubious guise of a temporary 
economic stimulus.
  This is what the White House and the other side in Congress were 
telling us had to be reauthorized in order to pass the free-trade 
agreements. My amendment also addresses the claim made by some that the 
agreement in the majority leader's substitute amendment not only 
reduces TAA from stimulus levels but also much lower in several years.
  However, according to a recent Heritage Foundation analysis, this may 
not be accurate. This is important, so let me read this analysis at 
length. This is from the Heritage Foundation report:

       Instead of cutting TAA back to pre-stimulus levels, the 
     proposal restores and solidifies the most alarming aspects of 
     the stimulus expansion at a yet unknown cost.
       It keeps the 2009 stimulus expansion for service sector 
     workers. TAA was originally intended to provide income 
     maintenance and job training to workers from the 
     manufacturing sector. The stimulus bill expanded eligibility 
     to include workers from the service and public sectors. This 
     expansion expired in February, but the proposal restores TAA 
     eligibility for service sector workers.
       It restores stimulus expansion of benefits for job losses 
     unrelated to FTAs. The proposal retains the stimulus 
     expansion of providing TAA benefits to any workers who lost 
     their jobs to overseas production, not just TAA-certified 
     jobs that were lost to FTAs.
       It reinstates the stimulus's 161 percent increase in TAA 
     for workers' job training spending. The proposal cements the 
     stimulus spending expansion of TAA for workers' job training 
     at $575 million per year from $220 million--an increase of 
     $355 million per year.
       It continues the stimulus's creation of a new and 
     duplicative job training program.
       The proposal keeps the TAA Community College and Career 
     Training Program, which has appropriations authorizations of 
     $500 billion per year from fiscal years 2011 through 2014. 
     This new job-training program is just one of the 47 
     employment and training programs operated across nine 
     agencies by the federal government.

  Let me repeat that. This is another proposal that spends $500 million 
for job training, even though we already have 47 employment and 
training programs operated across 9 agencies by the Federal Government.

       It partially reinstates the stimulus increase in Health 
     Coverage Tax Credit. . . .
       It solidifies the wage subsidies for older workers as a 
     permanent program. The pre-stimulus Alternative TAA was a 
     temporary five-year demonstration program that paid 50 
     percent of the difference between new and old wages of 
     displaced older workers. It subsidized the wages of older 
     workers earning less than $50,000 per year for up to $10,000 
     over two years. After changing the program's name to 
     Reemployment TAA, the stimulus expansion increased the wage 
     subsidy to $12,000 over two years for displaced older workers 
     earning less than $55,000 and made the program permanent. 
     While the proposal reduces the wage subsidies to pre-stimulus 
     levels, it also cements into law the permanency of the wage 
     subsidy program.
       It retains the stimulus expansion of the union VEBA 
     handout. Despite having nothing to do with international 
     trade, the stimulus expansion of TAA extended the HCTC to 
     Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations (VEBA). A 
     bankruptcy court can allocate a portion of an out-of-business 
     employer's assets to a VEBA, which assumes responsibly for 
     retirees' health coverage. This expansion primarily benefits 
     unions. Under the

[[Page 14019]]

     proposal, the federal government would cover 72.5 percent of 
     the cost of retiree health benefits at bankrupt companies. 
     This coverage occurs regardless of whether the bankruptcies 
     are related to free trade.

  Let's look at an example of excess created in the ``temporary'' 
stimulus expansion of the TAA Program that taxpayers are still on the 
hook for. According to a February 2011 study by Senator Coburn, 
entitled ``Help Wanted: How Federal Job Training Programs are Failing 
Workers'':

       Taxpayers may have a case of indigestion when they learn, 
     nearly two years after the stimulus was enacted, their money 
     is paying lobstermen, shrimpers and blueberry farmers $12,000 
     each to attend job training sessions on jobs they are already 
     trained to do.
       The stimulus reauthorized the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     for Farmers program administered by the USDA, a program that 
     provides subsidies to producers of raw agricultural 
     commodities and fishermen so they can adjust to import 
     competition. Under the stimulus, TAA benefits were enhanced 
     to focus more on employment re-training.

  While the Reid substitute includes a compromise to ``pare back'' some 
of the expansions in the ``temporary'' stimulus spending legislation of 
2009, it still expands TAA benefits and eligibility beyond the 
prestimulus levels--by approximately, by my calculations, at least $600 
million a year.
  I acknowledge that expanding trade temporarily puts some of our 
workers at a disadvantage. I remember being roundly criticized during 
the 2008 Presidential campaign when I had the audacity to tell Michigan 
workers the truth--that many of the jobs that had left their State for 
cheaper labor markets overseas were never coming back. So I understand 
that trade can create difficulties for some American workers. I am not 
opposed, in principle, to supporting those workers temporarily so they 
can develop new skills and find new jobs. That said, let's look closer 
at how the Federal Government has been going about programs such as 
this.
  Earlier this year, the GAO released a study entitled ``Multiple 
Training and Employment Programs: Providing Information on Collocating 
Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote 
Efficiencies.'' Here is what the GAO reported on Federal employment and 
retraining programs, including the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program:

       Based on our survey of agency officials, we determined that 
     only 5 of the 47 programs have had impact studies that assess 
     whether the program is responsible for improved employment 
     outcomes. The five impact studies generally found that the 
     effects of participation were not consistent across programs, 
     with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to 
     be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.

  So not only are many of these worker employment and training programs 
duplicative, the GAO has found very little empirical evidence to 
support whether these programs are even accomplishing their intended 
goals--and what empirical evidence they have they found is, I repeat, 
`` . . . small inconclusive, or restricted to short term impacts.'' TAA 
is among these programs.
  This is bad enough, but what is worse, we have not even been told how 
much this expansion of TAA will cost the taxpayers. We are told the 
legislation includes ``offsets,'' but we know they are not real. 
Offsets allegedly include: rates for merchandise processing fees, 
changes to the ``time for remitting certain merchandise processing 
fees,'' unemployment compensation program integrity provisions to 
create a ``mandatory penalty assessment on fraud claims, prohibition on 
non-charging due to employer fault, reporting of rehired employees to 
the directory of new hires.'' That is supposed to come up with hundreds 
of millions of dollars.
  I cannot say what most of these mean, but I can say they are not 
real.
  Even while extending the TAA prestimulus program, we need to analyze 
whether the TAA Program is doing what it was intended to do. The 
following are some of the questions and concerns we must consider:
  Does the TAA Program provide overly generous benefits to a narrow 
population?
  According to analysis from the Heritage Foundation, based on 
statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the third quarter of 
fiscal year 2009, only 1 percent of mass layoffs were a result of 
import competition of overseas relocation.
  Is there evidence that TAA benefits and training help increase 
participants' earnings?
  An analysis by Professor Kara M. Reynolds of American University 
found ``little evidence that it (TAA) helps displaced workers find new, 
well-paying employment opportunities.'' In fact, TAA participants 
experienced a wage loss of 10 percent.
  The same study found that in fiscal year 2007, the Federal Government 
appropriated $855.1 million to TAA Programs. Of this amount, funding 
for training programs accounted for only 25 percent.
  In 2007, the Office of Management and Budget rated the TAA Program as 
``ineffective.'' The OMB found that the TAA Program failed to use tax 
dollars effectively because, among other reasons, the program has 
failed to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of achieving its goals.
  Let me close by reminding my colleagues how we got to our current 
predicament. It is mid-September of 2011, 2\1/2\ years since President 
Obama took office, and we still have not received these important trade 
agreements that were finalized half a decade ago--all because of the 
White House's insistence on making a ``temporary'' stimulus program--
the dubious extension of TAA--into a permanent domestic spending 
program.
  This is how George Will summed it up, writing in the Washington Post 
on June 8, 2011. The piece is as appropriate now as it was then:

       President Obama is sacrificing economic growth and job 
     creation in order to placate organized labor. And as the 
     crisis of the welfare state deepens, he is trying to enlarge 
     the entitlement system and exacerbate the entitlement 
     mentality. . . .
       On May 4, the administration announced that, at last, it 
     was ready to proceed with congressional ratification of the 
     agreements. On May 16, however, it announced they would not 
     send them until Congress expands an entitlement program 
     favored by unions.
       Since 1974, Trade Adjustment Assistance has provided 104, 
     and then 156, weeks of myriad financial aid, partly 
     concurrent with the 99 weeks of unemployment compensation to 
     people, including farmers and government workers, and firms, 
     even whole communities, that can more or less plausibly claim 
     to have lost their jobs or been otherwise injured because of 
     foreign competition. Even if the injury is just the loss of 
     unfair advantages conferred, at the expense of other 
     Americans, by government protectionism.

  This process should be appalling to the average American who is 
looking for an improving economy, not special favors to certain special 
interest groups.
  At a time when our national debt has reached unsustainable levels, at 
a time when Congress and the American people face some truly painful 
choices about how to cut our Federal budget, at a time when some are 
even considering enormous and dangerous cuts to our defense spending as 
a way to get our fiscal house in order, this is no time to throw more 
money than we did before the stimulus at a Federal program that, as the 
GAO points out, is duplicative and possibly ineffective.
  I am prepared to reluctantly support TAA if it were funded at the 
prestimulus level, as a recognition of reality that some form of this 
program is required in order to pass our existing trade agreements. But 
we should authorize it at prestimulus levels and not one dollar more. 
That is what this amendment would do. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  At this moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I wish to address some of the points 
raised by

[[Page 14020]]

our colleague from Arizona--just a couple areas; one is the question of 
the impact of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, which has been 
enhanced by way of the Recovery Act of 2009. I will talk about some of 
the reforms as well and maybe address some of the cost questions.
  First, with regard to trade adjustment assistance prior to the 2009 
period versus the period after that, I wish to submit for the Record--
and then I will walk through some of this--this document entitled 
``Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act (TGAAA) Worker 
Certification 5/18/2009-6/27/2011.'' This is a Department of Labor 
document.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE ACT (TGAAA) WORKER CERTIFICATIONS 5/18/2009-6/27/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Estimated total    Estimated total   Estimated percent
                                                         workers certified  workers certified      of workers
                         State                               under new          under all       certified under
                                                             provisions         provisions       new provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................              4,710             11,277              41.77
Alaska.................................................                  3                  3             100.00
Arizona................................................              4,969              8,540              58.16
Arkansas...............................................                807              6,192              13.03
California.............................................             20,942             30,619              68.40
Colorado...............................................              2,755              3,652              75.44
Connecticut............................................              2,916              4,728              61.68
DC.....................................................                 50                 50             100.00
Delaware...............................................                 13              1,281               1.01
Florida................................................              2,867              6,196              46.27
Georgia................................................              1,887              5,684              33.20
Hawaii.................................................                 43                 43             100.00
Idaho..................................................              1,549              2,228              69.52
Illinois...............................................              6,997             19,772              35.39
Indiana................................................              3,717             17,047              21.80
Iowa...................................................              1,479              4,380              33.77
Kansas.................................................              1,065              6,076              17.53
Kentucky...............................................              3,519              9,755              36.07
Louisiana..............................................                601              2,261              26.58
Maine..................................................                914              3,506              26.07
Maryland...............................................              1,556              3,118              49.90
Massachusetts..........................................              6,821              9,745              69.99
Michigan...............................................             14,440             49,642              29.09
Minnesota..............................................              4,325              9,166              47.19
Mississippi............................................                392              2,566              15.28
Missouri...............................................              2,889              9,328              30.97
Montana................................................                316                658              48.02
Nebraska...............................................              1,130              2,121              53.28
Nevada.................................................                 61                 89              68.54
New Hampshire..........................................                382              1,471              25.97
New Jersey.............................................              4,744              6,329              74.96
New Mexico.............................................              1,467              2,412              60.82
New York...............................................              9,411             18,795              50.07
North Carolina.........................................              9,674             19,569              49.44
North Dakota...........................................                905                905             100.00
Ohio...................................................              7,706             33,905              22.73
Oklahoma...............................................              1,473              1,976              74.54
Oregon.................................................              6,045             11,981              50.45
Pennsylvania...........................................              9,932             27,401              36.25
Puerto Rico............................................                 42                821               5.12
Rhode Island...........................................                579              1,401              41.33
South Carolina.........................................              4,133              8,358              49.45
South Dakota...........................................                350                925              37.84
Tennessee..............................................              6,676             17,712              37.69
Texas..................................................             11,706             20,441              57.27
Utah...................................................              2,233              3,328              67.10
Vermont................................................                344                964              35.68
Virginia...............................................              4,256             10,951              38.86
Washington.............................................              2,547              7,269              35.04
West Virginia..........................................              1,760              3,688              47.72
Wisconsin..............................................              5,731             16,864              33.98
Wyoming................................................                  0                 46               0.00
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................            185,783            447,235              41.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. CASEY. Let me go through, by way of summary, what this depicts. 
First of all, it is a document that has three columns; first is the 
``Estimated Total Workers Certified Under New Provisions,'' meaning the 
changes made to TAA as a result of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009; the second column is the ``Estimated Total 
Workers Certified . . .''--meaning certified under TAA--`` . . . Under 
All Provisions of TAA''; finally is the ``Estimated Percent of Workers 
Certified Under New Provisions'' as a result of the changes made. And 
what it shows is, if you look across the country, the estimated total 
workers certified under all provisions is 447,235 people. Of that, the 
increase--in essence because of the 2009 changes--is 185,783. And if 
you look at the percentage, that is a 41-percent increase.
  So the basic point here--after a long explanation--is very simple. 
Because of the changes made in 2009, we were able to help--the U.S. 
Government, by way of TAA--41 percent more individuals. That is 
relevant because it was helping folks to be retrained, helping them to 
get the skills they needed for a new career, a new job, at the time 
they needed it--during the worst economic catastrophe in 100 years, 
other than the Great Depression. So if there were ever a time when we 
needed to make sure that TAA worked--and it has worked--and, also, if 
there were ever a time when we wanted to make sure that TAA was 
strengthened and enhanced, it was during the last couple of years. That 
is the point, that the 2009 changes were made because we were in the 
throes, the teeth, the grip of the worst economic downturn in 100 
years, other than in the 1930s.
  Let me highlight a couple of States. For example, in my home State of 
Pennsylvania, what all this means, if you look at the total number of 
workers helped in this time period--again, talking about roughly the 2 
years between May of 2009 to June of 2011 in Pennsylvania--there were 
27,401 people helped. Workers helped, I should say. Of that, about 36 
percent were helped solely because of the Recovery Act changes.
  I know a good bit about the workers in our State. They needed that 
help. They needed the help that was provided as a result of the 
Recovery Act. So we have good evidence a lot of folks were helped, 
certified, and then enrolled in programs to give them the skills they 
needed.
  The Presiding Officer is from the State of New York, and she knows 
how difficult this recession has been on

[[Page 14021]]

workers in New York. The total number of workers certified in New York 
in that 2-year time period was 18,795. But half of that number, a 
little more than 50 percent, were helped as a result of the 2009 
changes that were made.
  I say that to highlight and emphasize that the 2009 changes allowed 
more workers to be retrained, to get the skills they needed to go back 
to work. I think that is what we are all about here. Democrats and 
Republicans all say they want workers to get back into the workforce. 
This is one of the ways we do it. It is very practical. In order to get 
from here to there--from unemployment to employment, and in a lot of 
cases to a new job or a new career--you need to be trained. That is 
what TAA does.
  I will highlight two or three more States. Chairman Baucus, from the 
great State of Montana, his State was helped as well. Their increase, 
based upon the 2009 changes, was close to 50 percent. So almost 50 
percent more workers in the State of Montana were helped as well to get 
the skills they needed.
  Let me mention as well my colleague Senator Brown who has worked so 
hard on this. There were 7,706 more workers in the State of Ohio who 
were certified to get the skills and training they needed because of 
these changes.
  And, finally, I will mention as well our colleague from Arizona. If 
we look at the total number of Arizona workers certified, there were 
8,540 workers certified in total, but of that 8,540, the increase was 
some 4,969. So in Arizona, the increase of workers who were helped or 
certified for new training, there was a 58.16-percent increase. So the 
increase in Arizona was even higher, and in some States it was even 
higher than that.
  The point here is that 2009 changes weren't just a couple of changes 
made to enhance the program or expand it for the sake of expanding a 
program. I think the evidence shows we have certified more workers. 
These workers have to go through a process to be certified in order for 
us to provide help by way of the Federal Government and other partners 
who are helping us retrain workers. I think the evidence is pretty 
clear that has been a very positive change, giving more workers the 
skills they needed to compete.
  Let me say as well about our colleague from Arizona that I appreciate 
what he said about TAA, and that he supports it. We may have a 
disagreement about how to get there. He apparently doesn't want the 
2009 changes to be made part of any effort going forward, but I 
appreciate the fact he has expressed support for TAA. I also appreciate 
the fact that when Senator Baucus, Senator Brown, I, and others in the 
latter days of 2010 were trying to get an expansion of TAA, Senator 
McCain worked with us to try to negotiate something. He was very 
willing to talk and to work and to come together, and I appreciate 
that, because we need that bipartisanship, we need that collegiality to 
move this forward. So even though we have a disagreement about the 
changes made, I appreciate his willingness to work with us back in 
December and to continue to work with us.
  Let me make one or two more points. One basic point about reform. 
Folks will criticize programs and say programs aren't sometimes going 
through the kind of changes we hoped for in reforming them. But we 
should note for the record that in 2008, the GAO released a study which 
highlighted a number of issues with trade adjustment assistance. They 
set forth findings. That is why GAO is important. We shouldn't allow 
programs to go on for years without some sort of reporting, 
accountability, performance measures, or whatever you wish to call it.
  GAO pointed out problems they believed could be the subject of reform 
for TAA, and those recommendations were the foundation for some of the 
changes in the 2009 Recovery Act we are debating here on the floor, and 
we are debating as a result of Senator McCain's amendment. Here is what 
they are. I will highlight them quickly. Here is what we are talking 
about.
  The amendment we are considering, or the effort we are working on to 
expand TAA, does a number of things we should highlight. In addition to 
making more workers eligible for training, it does a couple of things. 
First of all, it consolidates administration--that is important to 
highlight--it consolidates case management, and it consolidates job 
search and relocation funding under the new dollars for job training. 
The amendment also eliminates separate funding streams that were in 
place before, but it also allows States the flexibility to use a 
portion of the training funds for administration and for case 
management costs. States must prioritize these funds for training and 
case management, but administrative costs are capped at 10 percent of 
the funds and States can also use these funds to pay for 90 percent of 
the cost of job search and relocation up to $1,250.
  Finally, the amendment includes 30 new performance metrics and 
accountability measures across all TAA programs.
  So what is the point? The point is very simple. We had a GAO study in 
2008 that recommended changes to TAA. We had a Recovery Act introduced 
and enacted for a variety of reasons, some of which spoke directly to 
TAA in 2009. The reforms from the GAO study were incorporated in the 
2009 changes. So if we stay with the original non-2009 provisions, we 
won't have these reforms built in. GAO had pointed out some issues we 
should address, they were addressed in 2009, and that is another good 
reason why we should support the amendment that would include those 
2009 changes.
  Finally, on the question of costs or offsets, the 10-year cost for 
TAA is now $962 million over 10 years. That is cut way back. In fact, 
it has been cut by as much as half. We will talk about them more in the 
record, but there are three offsets. The first, so-called ``merchandise 
processing fee,'' raises $1.77 billion; the second, on unemployment 
insurance, accounts for $320 million; and then finally, the Medicare 
quality improvement organizations raises another $330 million. So there 
are offsets--three in number--and the total cost is now $962 million 
over 10 years. I think it is a reasonable price to pay for the 
substantial training and retraining that TAA provides for our workers 
who are living the horrific nightmare of job loss and the destruction 
of their careers, and, frankly, in many cases, the destruction of their 
family.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time in 
a quorum call be divided equally.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 641

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in support of my amendment No. 
641. As I explained yesterday, this amendment really is about 
fundamental fairness.
  The President wants TAA and has held hostage three free-trade 
agreements to get it. Well, most of us want these free-trade agreements 
and think it is wrong for TAA to move forward while the FTAs languish. 
My amendment will ensure that all four legislative ships arrive in port 
at the same time.
  It is time for the entire trade agenda to move forward. In August, as 
he

[[Page 14022]]

toured the Midwest, the President repeatedly called upon Congress to 
take the agreements up ``right now'' to help create jobs. This hollow 
call for action typifies the President's approach to the trade agenda. 
By calling upon Congress to act, he appears to be embracing the 
agreements and pushing for their quick approval. But, like so many of 
the President's trade initiatives, his words do not match his deeds.
  In reality, Congress cannot take up these agreements ``right now.'' 
President Obama is relying upon a trade law called trade promotion 
authority to protect each of these agreements from being blocked or 
amended by Congress. In order to take advantage of this statutory 
authority, it is not Congress but the President who must take the first 
step and submit each agreement for consideration. If the President does 
not submit these agreements, Congress cannot act under the trade 
promotion authority. The President and his team know this. In fact, 
here is a chart which outlines the TPA process, called ``How a Trade 
Agreement Moves Through Congress Under Trade Promotion Authority.'' 
This was taken directly from the Web site of the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative. It clearly shows that Congress cannot act until 
the President submits the agreements.
  But why take responsibility for moving the agreements when it is much 
easier to blame their continued delay on Congress? The fact is, the 
President wants all the benefits of trade promotion authority but none 
of the responsibility.
  Once they were called out on the mismatch between their words and 
their deeds, the administration finally reined in their rhetoric but 
provided little guidance as to what their actual plans are. In the 
meantime, Republicans continued to push for consideration of the three 
pending FTAs. Back in July, a group of Republican Senators signed a 
letter vowing to help the administration achieve its objective of 
gaining approval of trade adjustment assistance in exchange for 
submitting the FTAs. Now, despite a clear path forward, the President 
remains silent to this day.
  As the President continues to delay, our country cedes each of these 
three free-trade agreement markets to our foreign competitors, and they 
are taking them over because we are dilly dallying here instead of 
doing what is right.
  Our economy and our workers are suffering under horrific levels of 
unemployment. Almost 1 in 10 American workers are out of a job under 
this administration, and we can't afford to throw away any opportunity 
to create jobs. Yet this is precisely what the President is doing. The 
President himself has said these three trade agreements, once put into 
law, will amount to 250,000 new jobs, and that is not something to 
sniff at.
  While our economy remains troubled and while the rest of the world 
watches in bewilderment as the United States lets other countries take 
over our export markets, we hear nothing but silence from the 
President. A case in point: The European Union's exports to South Korea 
increased almost 45 percent in the first 20 days since that agreement 
went into force on July 1. Their share of Korea's import market 
increased from 9.5 percent to 10.3 percent in just 3 weeks. Meanwhile, 
the U.S. share of Korea's import market dropped from 10.5 percent to 
8.4 percent. Unless we act quickly, these trends are likely to 
continue.
  In an open letter to the President and Congress, over 120 food groups 
and companies wrote:

       If there is any doubt about the seriousness of the problem 
     for U.S. agricultural exports, one need only consider the 
     damage that has already been done by the delay in 
     implementing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Argentina and 
     Brazil have negotiated trade agreements with Colombia that 
     have given them preferential access. As a result, U.S.-
     produced corn, wheat, and soybeans have been hit hard, with 
     the combined share of Colombia's imports for these products 
     falling to 28 percent from 78 percent since 2008.

  That is a big drop, mainly because of the dillydallying on this trade 
agreement.
  On August 15, 2011, an agreement between Canada and Colombia entered 
into force, which will only make the problem worse for U.S. exporters 
and our farmers. The fact is that each of these agreements is 
critically important to our economy. For my home State of Utah and for 
workers across the country, they mean more opportunity and jobs. It is 
a slam dunk for the President to create jobs by getting these 
agreements up here and getting them passed.
  The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that U.S. workers 
lose $8 million in wages and benefits every day these agreements are 
delayed. I for one stand ready to continue to fight for their 
consideration and approval. We have come a long way this year, but we 
are not yet done.
  I hope the President will heed my call and submit these agreements to 
Congress so we can approve them, but history has shown this President 
will not act unless he is forced to. This amendment I am offering will 
continue to put pressure on him to act, and act soon, and I encourage 
my colleagues to support it. The time for dithering and deliberation is 
over. Let's adopt my amendment and ensure that our work in moving TAA 
forward leads to the promised result--submission of three pending free-
trade agreements by the President and their quick enactment into law.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, it is my understanding there will be two 
votes at approximately 12:30. One is on the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, and another by the Senator from 
Arizona, Senator McCain. I wish to explain, in a few minutes, why I 
think it is advisable for the Senate to not adopt either of those two 
amendments. Let me first address the amendment offered by my good 
friend from Utah, Senator Hatch.
  There are a lot of people looking for work. Today, about 14 million 
Americans are looking for work. More than 6 million have been out of 
work for at least 6 months. These Americans are looking to put in a 
good day's work and looking to provide for their families. At the same 
time, many employers cannot find enough skilled workers to fill the 
jobs that are open. It is very difficult, because employers need people 
with specialized skills. This is becoming more and more true with each 
passing year. We need workers who are good at math. We need workers who 
are good with their hands, who are trained in high-tech manufacturing. 
The bottom line is, employers need an educated and skilled workforce. 
Trade adjustment assistance can help bridge this gap. Trade adjustment 
assistance can train workers and connect them with employers who are 
looking to grow their businesses.
  Let me mention a fellow who has been a big beneficiary who has been 
helped by this program. His name is Kris Allen. Kris lost his job at 
Montana Tunnels in Jefferson City, MT, in 2009. Because of trade 
adjustment assistance, he was able to go to school at Helena College of 
Technology. He wanted to be a diesel mechanic. He made the dean's list 
most of the semesters. In May of 2011 he graduated. In fact, he got his 
degree on a Friday and started work the very next Monday. His new job 
at a trade company in Belgrade earns him $18 an hour. Kris has not 
stopped there. He continues to hone his skills at Montana Resources 
keeping up to date on the latest technology and machinery.
  In this fast-paced globalized economy, human capital is the key to 
our country's competitiveness and economic vitality. Americans such as 
Kris know the benefits of a good day's work, and he could not have done 
this without trade adjustment assistance. That is why I must oppose the 
Hatch amendment. The amendment would withhold trade adjustment 
assistance benefits to

[[Page 14023]]

this bill until a free-trade agreement with South Korea and Colombia 
and Panama is approved. It would delay Americans such as Kris from 
getting the help they need to find good-paying jobs, and the amendment 
would delay businesses such as New Holland Trade Company from hiring 
employees and growing their company.
  The Senate is here this week to consider the GSP trade adjustment 
assistance bill. It is my hope the Senate will pass it in short order 
and will send the bill to the House, which is expected to pass it 
shortly.
  We have an agreement, and that is an agreement between the leadership 
of both the House and Senate, an agreement on how the Congress will 
consider trade adjustment assistance and also how to consider free-
trade agreements. There is no need to legislate this process. In fact, 
doing so could substantially delay the process and disrupt 
disagreements, not just disrupt trade adjustment assistance but disrupt 
passage of free-trade agreements.
  I might add that there is a difference between the legislative 
process with respect to trade adjustment assistance and free-trade 
agreements. Trade adjustment assistance is legislation. It goes through 
the usual legislative process. It can be delayed. There is no 
requirement that it be voted on.
  That is not true with free-trade agreements. Once the President sends 
up a free-trade agreement, it enjoys a certain fast-tack process under 
which there must be a vote in both bodies after a certain period of 
time. It is not imperative between the legislative process in one and 
the special fast- track process for the other. It is why the agreement 
was reached encouraging trust on both sides for the trade adjustment 
assistance amendment to be passed by both bodies first before the 
President can send up the free-trade agreements. He has indicated he 
will do so.
  I have very strong assurance from the White House that is the case. 
In fact, that is the agreement with the leadership, that if the trade 
adjustment assistance passes, then the free-trade agreement will come 
up and be voted on and passed in the House and then voted on and passed 
in the Senate.
  The best way to support our trade agenda and the best way to support 
free-trade agreements is to not accept the amendment as offered by my 
good friend from Utah so we can get both passed very quickly.


                           Amendment No. 625

  Virtually, the same is true with respect to the amendment offered by 
Senator McCain. I oppose Senator McCain's amendment. He wants to go 
back and undo some of the progress that was made in trade adjustment 
assistance. Let's start with the 2002 trade adjustment assistance law. 
That made important changes in trade adjustment assistance. In fact, I 
helped write that law.
  In 2002 trade adjustment assistance covered manufacturing workers, 
and it covered workers whose jobs shifted to countries with which we 
had a free-trade agreement. So it covered workers who were in 
manufacturing who lost their jobs, and then it covered workers whose 
jobs were shifted to countries with which we had a free-trade 
agreement. Other aspects of American employment, such as services, did 
not cover the jobs that shifted to countries with which we did not have 
a free-trade agreement.
  That 2002 law not only covered manufacturing workers and workers 
whose jobs shifted to countries with which we had a free-trade 
agreement, it also doubled training funds. Doubled it. Training is so 
critical. It also provided a new tax credit to help Americans better 
afford health insurance for themselves and their families. That is no 
small item. We all know how hard it is to get health insurance 
especially for individuals in small firms. We are not talking about big 
companies. We are talking about individuals who have lost their jobs. 
We also know how expensive health care is; therefore, there is a great 
need for health insurance. Again, that 2002 change of the trade 
adjustment assistance doubled training funds. Training is so important 
in today's modern society, and it provided a new tax credit to help 
Americans better afford health insurance.
  Our economy has changed since 2002. America's strength in 
manufacturing expanded to include a robust services sector, which is 
now 80 percent of our economy. Madam President, 80 percent of our 
economy today is services. It is all different facets. It is call 
centers, insurance, and everything you can think of that is 
characterized as services. America's trade with foreign nations has 
expanded to countries such as China and India, big countries with which 
we do not have free-trade agreements. The service sector has expanded 
just since 2002, and we have trade with other countries with which we 
do not have free-trade agreements.
  I believe trade adjustment assistance should cover workers both in 
manufacturing and services. It should cover workers whose jobs move to 
any country, especially China, whether it is an FTA country--free-trade 
agreement country--or not.
  These changes in realities have prompted me and my colleagues to 
update that program, to update it from what it was in 2002. It was 
updated in 2009. When they updated it in 2009 the law brought trade 
adjustment assistance more fully to the 21st century by providing 
Americans with training for the new economy. Unfortunately, those 
expanded provisions expired in February. They are gone. That had a big 
impact. Thousands of workers were denied access because the expiration 
of the expansion of trade adjustment assistance.
  For example, more than 1,000 service sector workers in both Texas and 
Virginia were denied TAA benefits when the 2009 law expired earlier 
this year. These workers likely will be eligible under the trade 
adjustment assistance compromise I negotiated with Chairman Camp. 
Chairman David Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, 
and I and our staffs spent a lot of time getting an agreement on trade 
adjustment assistance, what the provisions should be, how far the 
expansion should go, and how it should be paid for. It was an 
agreement, a bipartisan agreement. There is not much of that around 
here, but we worked hard and got the job done.
  I must say, however, under Senator McCain's amendment, these service 
workers I mentioned would remain shut out. They would not qualify. I 
think it is time to bring us into the modern world. It is time to 
provide equal access to all Americans regardless of whether they work 
on a factory floor or a call center. It should not matter. If you lose 
your job on account of trade, you should get trade adjustment 
assistance benefits regardless of whether the job moves to Mexico, a 
country with whom we do have a free-trade agreement or if the job moves 
to a country such as China, a country with whom we do not have a free-
trade agreement.
  I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the McCain amendment. I 
think it is unwise. I might also add that if either of these two 
amendments pass, guess what. It gets all gummed up over in the House. 
The House, therefore, cannot take up the clean trade adjustment 
assistance amendment. We have to go back all over again, amend it 
again, back and forth.
  Do you know what that is going to do? It is going to do two things: 
That is going to jeopardize passage of the updated trade adjustment 
assistance. Guess what else it is going to do. It is going to 
jeopardize passage of free-trade agreements. I think a vast majority of 
the Members of this body and in the other body, together, want both of 
these matters passed.
  I must say if we had amendments here, despite them being defective on 
the merits, if amendments are added, it is going to delay the process 
further. The House will have to amend it again, send it back over here, 
and it is going to very much delay both the trade adjustment assistance 
and the free-trade agreements. For those reasons I urge that those 
amendments not be agreed to.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, nothing of the sort is going to happen. 
The

[[Page 14024]]

fact is, we have had nothing but delays by the President. Just a few 
weeks ago he was accusing us of not passing the free-trade agreements 
when he knows we cannot even consider them. There have been a lot of 
games played with us.
  I remember last spring in our committee when the Trade Representative 
said: We have a few more things we have to work out on Panama and 
Colombia, and we will definitely send these free-trade agreements 
before the August recess.
  We got near the August recess, and they said: Well, we need one other 
thing. We need trade adjustment assistance.
  Now, if they need trade adjustment assistance--and I have no doubt 
that is going to pass in the Senate if there is a fair process. I do 
not believe there is any doubt it will pass in the House. The agreement 
worked out by the distinguished chairman and Chairman Camp over in the 
House probably will be voted on. I have to vote against it.
  The fact is, all my amendment--it does evidence some distrust in this 
process. All my amendment does is say: Look, we are not going to allow 
trade adjustment assistance to go into effect until these three trade 
agreements are sent by the President and passed. Both bodies can pass 
the trade adjustment assistance on this bill, and that is fine with me. 
My amendment says TAA does not go into effect until the President 
submits these three treaties, and they are passed and become law. Then 
trade adjustment assistance goes.
  That is a very fair way of doing this. It is a way of saying to 
everybody: Let's get rid of the mistrust. Let's do this in a straight-
up way. Let's do it so everybody knows what is going to happen. Trade 
adjustment assistance will ultimately come into effect, but only after 
the administration lives up to submitting these trade agreements and 
they are passed.
  Why would we want trade adjustment assistance to pass if these three 
trade agreements do not pass? It is just another big cost to the 
government. Keep in mind the people who are out of work are getting 
unemployment insurance. Trade adjustment assistance adds payments on 
top of that to their unemployment insurance. Why would we do that if we 
are not going to have these three trade agreements become law? It just 
makes no sense. Mine is a practical amendment.
  It says let's get rid of the game playing. We will do this if you do 
this. Frankly, the President promised to do it, and we are still 
standing here waiting for the three trade agreements to be sent here. 
To me, it is hard to imagine why the President is not doing this.
  By the way, on the trade adjustment assistance a little less than 7 
percent of our nongovernment workers are unionized. Yet one-third of 
these payments will go to union members. I do not blame my colleagues 
on the other side for wanting to help anybody who is out of work or 
anybody who belongs to a trade union. But do we always have to do it in 
a slanted way that helps one small sector of the workers in this 
country and not the rest of them? It is a problem. We have unemployment 
insurance to take care of people who are out of work. We should do 
that. It is important we do that. Trade adjustment assistance is just 
adding some more payments on top of that.
  There is a real question whether we should do it here because I asked 
the representatives of the Administration in the committee what jobs 
are going to be lost as a result of these three agreements. They could 
not come up with one. There will be, according to the administration, 
250,000 new jobs that will occur, or at least jobs that will occur and 
will be sustained by these three trade agreements once they are enacted 
into law.
  Just yesterday my friends on the other side voted down trade 
promotion authority. I cannot imagine why any President would not want 
trade promotion authority.
  It is mind-boggling to me that this President doesn't want it. It is 
the only way we are going to be able to get free-trade agreements done. 
Otherwise, we are going to have to do it through other legislative 
processes, which is much more arduous, much more difficult, and does 
not come up with just an up-or-down vote. There is a reason for this 
process, and that is to be able to do free trade in this country. Yet 
every time we turn around there is another roadblock thrown up by the 
other side, as though they don't want free trade. I understand that for 
some unsubstantiated or ridiculous reason the unions don't like free-
trade agreements, even though they are going to, according to the 
Administration, create 250,000 new jobs--or jobs, anyway. Why wouldn't 
they like those? They have an opportunity to unionize companies that 
come into existence.
  By the way, even under the stilted, one-sided National Labor 
Relations Board that currently exists that is running away with our 
responsibilities and legislating from the regulatory bench--even with 
that board, unions win 60 percent of union elections--contested 
elections. It is not as though they are being picked on or are not 
being treated fairly.
  By the way, I would be one of the first to make sure they are treated 
fairly. I am one of the few people in this whole body who earned a 
union card. I worked in the building and construction trade unions for 
10 years. I acknowledge the distinguished Presiding Officer sitting in 
the chair earned a union card. I am not sure we can call that a union, 
working with the--just joshing. The entertainment industry unions are 
not like the AFL-CIO. We are tough as nails. On the other hand, I have 
to retract that because I have seen some people in the entertainment 
industry as tough as nails, and the Presiding Officer is one. No 
question about it. I have great admiration for him. But he ought to be 
with me on this. He ought to be with me because all we are saying is, 
look--and the most that would happen is a few days, enough to get the 
free-trade agreements passed in the House.
  So what I am saying is, first of all, let's get the President to do 
what he has blamed us for not doing; that is, to send these three free-
trade agreements with these countries that are so important to us and 
we are important to them. We are losing business every day because this 
is being dragged out for so long. Send them so we can vote on them. TAA 
will pass here, and I believe it will pass over there with the process 
we have.
  All I am saying is it doesn't become effective because we shouldn't 
be paying for people when we don't have free-trade agreements that are 
the basis for paying people. All I am saying is they don't come into 
existence--the TAA doesn't come into existence until after these free-
trade agreements are ratified, are voted up or down, and become law--
voted up and become law. That is fair. It is an intelligent approach to 
it. It ends the mystery. It ends what some people think is a convoluted 
process. It ends what some people think is not a good-faith process. It 
does it in a way that doesn't hurt anybody, and it just says: Look, 
let's do it straight up so there is no more arguing or moaning or 
groaning or accusations that one side is not being fair to the other. 
Let's just do it this way.
  So I am calling on my colleagues on the other side to vote for my 
amendment. They don't lose a doggone thing. In fact, it will help this 
process along, and that is one reason I brought it up.
  I am personally not sure trade adjustment assistance will pass 
without my amendment. That is one reason I brought it to the Senate 
floor--because it is a fair, decent, honorable way of saying, OK, let's 
get rid of the mysteries. Let's get rid of the arguments. Let's get rid 
of the partisanship. Let's vote on these three free-trade agreements--
or excuse me, the trade adjustment assistance--which is going to add a 
lot of money to the cost of this government, and let's vote on them. 
When they are both voted through by the House and the Senate, then 
let's bring up the three free-trade agreements which should pass 
readily in both Houses. Once they become law, trade adjustment 
assistance comes into being.
  That is a fair, responsible way of doing this in a way that does away 
with the mystery, does away with partisanship, does away with

[[Page 14025]]

Democratism and Republicanism and gets this process down the road.
  For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would argue with 
this. I am calling on my Democratic friends and saying: Let's be 
bipartisan about this. Let's send a message to the President that we 
want those doggone trade agreements up here. He controls that process. 
I just found it astounding when he came out and said: I wish they would 
pass the three free-trade agreements when he knows we can't until he 
sends them.
  This agreement is not only fair, it is the right thing to do. It may 
be the only way we are going to get these three free-trade agreements 
done. I would like to hear a good argument against them, but there 
isn't any. With these free-trade agreements, I believe there will be 
thousands of jobs created. I am not sure there will be 250,000 as the 
administration claims, but I believe there will be many jobs at a time 
when we need jobs.
  Trade adjustment assistance--there are a lot of sincere people in 
this body and in the other body who believe it is absolutely essential, 
even though there was not one shred of evidence as far as I heard that 
any jobs would be lost as a result of these two free-trade agreements. 
But I am willing to understand there may be some loss, and therefore--
and even if there aren't, to get these three free-trade agreements 
through, the other side says we have to pass TAA. Fine. Let's pass it 
through both bodies. Let's make it subject to getting the three free-
trade agreements passed into law because it should be subject to that.
  There is no reason in the world why we would add more spending from a 
trade adjustment assistance standpoint unless we have these three free-
trade agreements. That is the argument for the trade adjustment 
assistance that our colleagues on the other side and some on our side 
are making. I have a feeling this is the way to get this done. It is 
the smart way to get it done. It is the honorable way to get it done. 
It is the truthful way to get it done. It is the bipartisan way to get 
it done.
  I think people know I have a reputation for being able to bring both 
sides together from time to time, and that is what I am trying to do. 
This is not a political game as far as I am concerned. I do want these 
three free-trade agreements because I know it would be great for our 
country. We are losing business. We have gone down from 74 percent 
agricultural exports to Colombia to 28 percent. Anybody with brains 
would say we shouldn't have allowed that to happen, and it wouldn't 
have had we passed these three free-trade agreements, or at least the 
Colombia one, last year. But Korea is such a big, even greater trading 
partner than Colombia--although, when I look at what President Uribe 
and what President Santos, the current President, have done to 
straighten out that country and get rid of the terrorists and to bring 
down the violence against union members and so forth, they deserve our 
support. They deserve these agreements.
  When I look at Korea and what an important partner they are in our 
trade--and we are losing trade to them now; others are taking it away 
from us because we haven't passed the Korean agreement--my gosh, it 
doesn't take any brains to realize we are not acting like friends to 
Korea.
  Then look at Panama. Panama is one of the financial centers of this 
hemisphere. It is a great nation. It is important to us, above all 
people. It is dishonorable for us to not pass the Panamanian Free Trade 
Agreement that they worked out with us and which we had to add labor 
language in each one of these agreements that wasn't there before 
because of this administration's fealty to organized labor. Fine.
  Why don't we do what has to be done to pass these three free-trade 
agreements and to get the support for TAA for those who believe that is 
the right way to go and get rid of any kind of concerns that one side 
or other would not live up to its share of the battle. My amendment 
will do that.
  I hope it is not just a partisan vote. I hope we have some Democrats 
who will vote for my amendment. If we do, I think it will push this 
whole process forward in a way that makes sense.
  Mr. President, let me just dwell a few minutes on one of the things I 
would like to get across. People ask me why I spent years working 
toward a leadership position on the Senate Finance Committee. It is 
pretty simple. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over issues that 
matter not only to the people of Utah but to everybody: the bloated Tax 
Code we have, the inheritance taxes, health programs such as Medicare 
and Medicaid, Social Security, issues that go to the heart of 
international trade such as customs duties, tariff, and import quotas, 
and free-trade agreements. I could go on and on. It is a very important 
committee.
  Sixty percent of all spending in this government comes through the 
Finance Committee. Being the lead Republican on the Finance Committee 
gives me a unique platform to shape all of these policies in a way that 
works best for my home State of Utah, and I hope the Nation as a whole.
  Today I wish to focus on international trade and why I am so 
passionate about opening new markets to our goods and services. It gets 
repeated ad nauseam that 95 percent of our potential customers live 
outside of the United States, and there is no doubt that trade is vital 
to America's competitiveness. But trade has immediate and particular 
importance to jobs and the economy in my home State of Utah as well as 
every other State.
  Last year alone companies in Utah shipped over $13 billion in 
merchandise exports to international markets--$13 billion--supporting 
nearly 93,000 jobs in our State. Think about that: $13 billion and 
close to 100,000 jobs thanks to products Utah companies sold outside 
the borders of the United States. My State is only one State. I think 
every State can tell a similar story. That doesn't even include our 
service providers, who similarly take advantage of opportunities across 
the globe. Companies in Utah exported to over 190 foreign markets; 
companies such as Varian Medical Systems, which produces cutting-edge 
x-ray products that assist with various cancer treatments and 
industrial security screening and which provides over 700 people with 
good-paying jobs in our State.
  By removing barriers to trade, free-trade agreements level the 
playing field for our companies operating in markets abroad. This has 
an immediate and observable impact on trade. Following the 
implementation of every U.S. bilateral or regional free-trade 
agreement, Utah has increased its exports to partner countries.
  Let me give two examples. Utah's exports to Morocco experienced 
growth of over 2,000 percent after the United States implemented a 
free-trade agreement with them, and Utah's exports to Singapore 
increased by over 800 percent after we implemented that FTA.
  Listening to some of the pundits, it would be easy to draw the 
conclusion that exports in free trade are only important to large, 
multinational companies; but nothing could be further from the truth. 
In 2008, the most recent year for which we have statistics, 86 percent 
of Utah's exporting companies were small or midsized companies. For the 
entrepreneurs who lead these small and midsized companies, 
international trade is their lifeblood. But exports are only part of 
the story.
  Thanks to low taxes, family-friendly values, and a well-educated, 
motivated, and internationally savvy workforce, Utah is a place where 
people want to live and work. And it is not just the greatest skiing in 
the world, although that certainly is a draw.
  When foreign companies look to grow their operations or gain a 
foothold in the U.S. market, they increasingly look to Utah to site 
their operations. These companies invest significant amounts of capital 
to open or expand facilities in our State every year.
  Foreign-owned companies employ over 34,000 workers in Utah. That is 
more than 3 percent of all Utah employees in the private sector. These 
are well-paying jobs. U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies pay an 
average compensation of over $68,000 per year. And let's not forget all 
of the spending by international visitors to our world-

[[Page 14026]]

class colleges and universities, ski resorts, and parks.
  That is why I have been pushing so hard to get the three FTAs with 
South Korea, Panama, and Colombia passed and implemented. It is not the 
only reason, but it is certainly a reason. These agreements have been 
sitting idle for far too long. They were negotiated during the 
Administration of President Bush. They were wrapped in a bow for 
President Obama, ready to go the day he took office. His own 
Administration has made some changes in them that these three countries 
have agreed to. Yet President Obama still has not sent them to Congress 
for a vote, which is astounding to me. The President himself says these 
three agreements will create 250,000 new jobs. His failed stimulus, his 
burdensome overregulation of business, his penchant for taxing and 
spending to ``redistribute wealth'' all rubbed salt in the wounds of a 
difficult economy. We are now left with an unemployment rate of 9.1 
percent. You would think the President would be eager to do something 
everyone agrees would actually create real jobs, and not just real 
jobs, great jobs. But the FTAs with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia 
remain on his desk.
  While the President stands still, the world continues to forge ahead. 
China continues to pursue policies that boost its growth at our 
expense. Other countries around the world continue to negotiate trade 
agreements that exclude the United States, putting Utah exporters at a 
serious disadvantage, as well as other States. The consequences of this 
Administration's trade paralysis are real.
  By way of example, the U.S. share of Colombia's agricultural imports 
has already fallen from nearly 44 percent in 2007 to 21 percent in 
2010. The EU and Canada swooped in to fill this vacuum. Both have now 
negotiated free-trade agreements with Colombia.
  During President Bush's Presidency, we passed trade agreements with 
14 countries, providing a significant boost to the U.S. economy. By 
contrast, President Obama has not submitted a single trade agreement to 
Congress.
  It certainly does not help that the President has refused to spend 
any political capital to seek trade negotiating authority from 
Congress. The need for it is obvious: Without it, we cannot pass good 
agreements to open foreign markets for our exports. That is why every 
President since FDR has sought this authority. Why doesn't this 
President? I think it is a lack of experience, personally. He is smart 
enough to understand this.
  Every President but one has sought it. The only one who has not is 
our current President. But whether he seeks it or not, I am going to 
work to see that he gets it. And when he does, you can be sure it will 
be designed to shape his negotiating objectives so that the resulting 
agreements embody high standards that best serve the economies of the 
United States and, in particular, my home State of Utah.
  It is vital that future trade agreements--such as the proposed Trans-
Pacific Partnership Agreement between the United States and six other 
nations--protect the intellectual property of our innovators and 
content creators, level the playing field for our companies which are 
often forced to engage in lopsided competition with state-owned 
companies and national champions, enable modern day integrated global 
supply chains, and enhance market access for both goods and services 
providers.
  In the months and weeks ahead, we have the opportunity to shape the 
economic future of our great Nation and my own great State of Utah. I 
am going to do my part to ensure that trade plays a central part in 
that equation.
  I hope everybody in this body realizes how important this is and that 
we should not keep playing these games because we have political 
opportunism. Then again, that is another reason for my amendment. My 
amendment says the games will be over. Both sides will vote on TAA. The 
President will have to submit the agreements. Once the agreements are 
passed and made into law, TAA comes into existence. And it should not 
come into existence until after these agreements become law.
  What it says to everybody is: Look, the games are over. This is the 
way to do it. This is the fair way to do it. This is the bipartisan way 
to do it.
  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get these free-trade agreements 
passed? Wouldn't it be a wonderful achievement for all of us here--a 
bipartisan achievement, with the President getting lots of credit for 
it? I think it would be a good thing. If we cannot do this, then you 
can imagine what this place is going to become in the future. My 
amendment is the way you get there.
  I am hoping my colleagues on the other side listen to this. I hope 
they pay attention. I sure hope they vote for this amendment because if 
they do not, I question whether we will ever have these free-trade 
agreements.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 641 offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.
  There will be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. My understanding is both sides are waiving the 2 minutes 
of debate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Indiana (Mr. Lugar).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lugar
     Rockefeller
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 
54. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                 Amendment No. 625 to Amendment No. 633

  Under the previous order, the question is on amendment No. 625, 
offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. There will be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the vote.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the stimulus passed in 2009 was purported 
to be temporary. As part of that massive piece of legislation, we made 
a significant expansion and added at least

[[Page 14027]]

$600 million a year to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. This 
amendment would cut back to the prestimulus number of the TAA.
  It is pretty simple. It would save at least $600 million per year on 
questionable programs of questionable effectiveness. But the point is, 
the stimulus was supposed to be a temporary increase in spending and 
not a permanent one. The Reid package makes most of it--at least 65 
percent of it--permanent. The least we can do is cut it back to 
prestimulus levels, which is supported by the National Taxpayers Union. 
I know that will be very persuasive to my friends on the other side of 
the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this country has an extremely high 
unemployment rate. We all know a lot of people are losing jobs and some 
are losing jobs on account of trade. The world has changed, even as 
recently as 2002. In 2002, the law said: OK. If a person loses a job on 
account of jobs going to a free-trade country, they are eligible for 
trade adjustment assistance, but it has to be a manufacturing job.
  That was changed in 2009 because the country has changed. There are a 
lot of countries with which we trade that are not FTA partners--China, 
India. It makes eminent sense, if someone loses a job on account of 
trade with any country, that person should be eligible for trade 
adjustment assistance and not just with FTA countries.
  Secondly, we expanded that to services. Eighty percent of the workers 
in our country are in the services sector, not the manufacturing 
sector. That addition was also provided for in 2009.
  For technical reasons also, if this amendment passes, it jeopardizes 
both TAA as well as FTA because everything has to be renegotiated. So I 
urge this amendment not be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--53

     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
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
53. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hatch 
or his designee be recognized to offer amendment No. 642; that 
following the Hatch amendment Senator Cornyn be recognized for debate 
only for up to 15 minutes; then Senator Kyl or his designee be 
recognized to offer amendment No. 645 anytime prior to 5 p.m.; that the 
time until 5 p.m. be for debate on the Hatch and Kyl amendments and be 
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 5 
p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Hatch and Kyl 
amendments, in that order; that there be no amendments, points of 
order, or motions in order to either amendment prior to the votes other 
than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that 
each amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; and there 
be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 642 To Amendment No. 633

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 642 to amendment No. 633.

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

 (Purpose: To modify the eligibility requirements for trade adjustment 
                              assistance)

       On page 31 of the amendment, between lines 6 and 7, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 224. MODIFICATION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE 
                   ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers.--Section 222 
     of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2272), as amended by 
     section 211(a), is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``contributed 
     importantly to such workers' separation or threat of 
     separation and to'' and inserting ``was a substantial cause 
     of such workers' separation or threat of separation and of''; 
     and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``contributed 
     importantly to'' and inserting ``was a substantial cause 
     of'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(B) of subsection (b), as redesignated 
     by section 211(a), by striking ``contributed importantly to'' 
     and inserting ``was a substantial cause of''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), as redesignated and amended by 
     section 211(a), by striking paragraph (1) and redesignating 
     paragraphs (2) through (4) as paragraphs (1) through (3), 
     respectively.
       (b) Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.--Section 251 of 
     the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``contributed 
     importantly to such total or partial separation, or threat 
     thereof, and to'' and inserting ``were a substantial cause of 
     such total or partial separation, or threat thereof, and 
     of''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (A);
       (ii) by striking ``(B)''; and
       (iii) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and moving such 
     subparagraphs, as so redesignated, 2 ems to the left.
       (c) Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers.--
       (1) In general.--Section 292(c)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2401a(c)(3)) is amended by striking ``contributed 
     importantly to'' and inserting ``was a substantial cause 
     of''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 291 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2401) is amended by striking paragraph (3) 
     and redesignating paragraphs (4) through (7) as paragraphs 
     (3) through (6), respectively.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are talking about trade, how we create 
markets for what Americans grow or build and sell abroad, which creates 
jobs here at home. But I wish to talk about a rather specialized area 
of trade, and that has to do with foreign military sales, and 
particularly I wish to talk about a topic Senator Menendez and I 
introduced a bill on last week called the Taiwan Air Power 
Modernization Act of 2011. This bill requires the U.S. Government to 
respond to the request of the Government of

[[Page 14028]]

Taiwan for the sale of at least 66 F-16 C/D fighter aircraft to Taiwan.
  That sounds like a mouthful and a big subject, and it is, but let me 
try to put some meat on the bone and explain why I think this is so 
important.
  Support of the people of Taiwan has been a bipartisan priority for 
decades. Democrats and Republicans supported the Mutual Defense Treaty 
with Taiwan, signed by President Eisenhower in 1954. Democrats and 
Republicans came together and passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which 
was signed by President Carter in 1979, and which remains the law of 
the land today. The Taiwan Relations Act states 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.
  What does sufficient self-defense capabilities mean? President 
Reagan, in a memorandum he dictated dated August 17, 1982, laid it out. 
This is about the time the third communique between Communist China and 
the United States was formally adopted, because the Chinese wanted to 
know exactly what this meant. Were arms provided to Taiwan a threat of 
aggressive weaponry or purely for defensive purposes? According to 
James Lilley, who was America's top representative in China at the time 
and who later served as Ambassador to China under George Herbert Walker 
Bush, that is what this was designed to do, to crystalize what the 
nature of the weapons sales to the Taiwan Government would be used for. 
This memorandum from President Reagan in August 17, 1982 laid it out:

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

  This is strictly for giving Taiwan the ability to defend itself 
against potential Communist actions by Communist China. It was directly 
proportional and reciprocal to the threat posed by the People's 
Republic of China.
  But Ronald Reagan was not alone in this interpretation. In fact, both 
Democrats and Republicans over the years have supported numerous arms 
sales to the Government of Taiwan, including the current request for 66 
F-16 C/D advanced fighter aircraft.
  So far this year, 47 Republicans and Democrats have signed a letter--
these are Senators--to the administration in support of this sale. In 
August, 181 Members of the House of Representatives, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, wrote to the administration endorsing this same sale.
  Why is Taiwan asking for these aircraft and why do so many Democrats 
and Republicans join together in a bipartisan way on this issue when 
the parties seem to be so polarized by so many other issues? The answer 
is simple and straightforward: Taiwan's air defense capabilities are 
nearly obsolete, while China's military capabilities are growing at an 
alarming rate. This chart demonstrates the problem.
  On the right in the red you will see that China has 2,300 operational 
military combat aircraft, while Taiwan has 490 operational combat 
aircraft. But air defense is not just a numbers game. Quality of those 
aircraft matters a lot--just as much as quantity. So what about the 
quality of Taiwan's existing forces?
  According to our own intelligence services, the Defense Intelligence 
Agency, in an unclassified report last year, said that ``many of 
Taiwan's fighter aircraft are close to or beyond service life, and many 
require extensive maintenance support.''
  China's capabilities, on the other hand, are clearly newer and 
clearly growing and clearly focused on intimidating Taiwan and 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 12 percent, after an increase last year of 7.5 percent. But the 
Pentagon estimates that China's official military budget of about $90 
billion they disclose, is actually far less than the $150 billion they 
actually spend. In other words, they only disclose part of their 
expenditures on national security and not the full amount, which is 
some $150 billion. The question is, who does China intimidate with 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 ``building the capabilities required to pose a credible 
military threat to Taiwan and U.S. forces in East Asia.''
  Let me repeat that. The Pentagon noted that 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.''
  Some say the United States should not look at our policy with Taiwan 
in a vacuum, that we should consider the context of our larger 
strategic relationship with China. I could not agree more, because the 
strategic situation with China these days is very troubling. Many of 
China's neighbors are concerned about its military buildup and 
territorial ambitions. Last year, China claimed the South China Sea as 
a ``core interest,'' which unsettled Vietnam, the Philippines, 
Indonesia, and other nations in the region. China also renewed a long-
running dispute with India over the borders of the Arunachal Pradesh 
region.
  China continues to be an enabler of the nuclear ambitions of the 
regime in North Korea. This summer, Google publicly reported that a 
Chinese entity has been targeting the personal e-mail accounts of U.S. 
and South Korean government employees, and Pakistan's defense minister 
publicly discussed the possibility of China building a naval base at 
Gwadar, Pakistan, which is already home to a new strategically 
important port at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman.
  China, we know, has also escalated its rhetoric aimed at the United 
States, and particularly the U.S. Senate. A number of my colleagues 
visited Beijing last April where they reportedly received a lecture 
from Chinese officials on fiscal policy. Just last week, more to the 
point of this topic, China's top official newspaper used a lot of 
unnecessary and bellicose rhetoric on the subject of the proposed U.S. 
arms sales to Taiwan. This official newspaper of the Communist Party in 
China said that those of us on Capitol Hill who support Taiwan are 
``madmen.'' They said we were ``playing with fire.'' They said we could 
pay a ``disastrous price'' if we continued to support our ally Taiwan, 
as we are obligated to do by the Taiwan Relations Act.
  I suggest the United States should not give in to this intimidation 
and these threats, and that we should instead pass this legislation to 
send a clear message to China that respects only strength, not 
weakness; that the real madmen are those who think America will abandon 
our friends and allies and our principles and our longstanding 
strategic interest in the stability of East Asia.
  Supporting this legislation would also greatly reassure our allies 
and friends around the world. Many remember what happened when 
President Clinton deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups during 
the Taiwan Strait crisis in 1996. That crisis developed when China 
tried to intimidate Taiwan on the eve of its first free Presidential 
elections by conducting a series of military exercises that included 
the firing of missiles 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 strength and resolve under President Clinton's 
leadership did not escalate the crisis, it defused it, and it sent a 
welcome signal to our friends and allies in the region. According to an 
article in the current issue of Washington Quarterly, following the 
crisis, ``the region's confidence in the United States soared.''

[[Page 14029]]

  `` . . . Japan, Singapore, the Philippines and other nations all 
bolstered their security ties with the United States.'' The Taiwan 
Strait crisis was one of the real foreign policy success stories of the 
Clinton administration. But the authors of this same article conclude 
that ``forsaking Taiwan [now] would likely have the opposite effect.''
  This bill deserves bipartisan support of the majority of Members of 
the Senate based on our longstanding bipartisan consensus on policy 
toward Taiwan, the growing gap in military capabilities between the 
People's Republic of China and the Government of Taiwan, China's 
aggressive behavior toward its neighbors and toward the United States, 
and America's credibility with our allies and with free peoples 
everywhere.
  I conclude by pointing out perhaps something that is obvious, but 
maybe it is not so obvious to everyone. Since we are talking about 
trade, what we grow and we sell to people abroad creating jobs at home, 
it is worth mentioning that selling F-16 aircraft to Taiwan creates 
jobs and exports for the U.S. economy and does not cost 1 penny of 
taxpayer money. This map demonstrates all the States in which direct 
and indirect employment from which the export sales 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 as a result of the sale of these F-16s, making the 
sale of the F-16s to Taiwan a coast-to-coast job engine. In fact, 
according to the Perryman Group, the requested sale of F-16C/Ds to 
Taiwan ``would generate some $8.7 billion in output; and directly 
support more than 23,000 jobs.''
  As I pointed out earlier, these jobs do not cost the American people 
one cent. These are private sector jobs paid for with money coming in 
from overseas because this is an export-driven industry. The only thing 
the U.S. Government needs to do is get out of the way and let these 
Americans continue to stay on the job and collect an estimated $768 
million in Federal tax revenues. Yes, not only will we be selling these 
aircraft, creating jobs, we will be generating revenue for the Federal 
Treasury in the process, generated by this private sector, export-
driven economic activity.
  I wish to thank the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for 
introducing this legislation with me, and I thank my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle who have agreed to cosponsor it. I hope more 
Senators will join us, and I hope we will pass this bill soon. I hope 
we can help American workers continue building these aircraft to 
strengthen our friends, the people of Taiwan.
  Mr. President, let me just close on this comment: This is standalone 
legislation I discussed here today, but I will be offering, in due 
course, an amendment to the pending bill that would mandate this sale. 
So I would ask my colleagues to please join us in a bipartisan way of 
showing our support for our friends and allies in Taiwan and generating 
jobs right here at home.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                          Disaster Assistance

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, my State of Vermont has been hit very 
hard by Hurricane Irene. Widespread flooding caused a number of deaths, 
the loss of many homes and businesses, and hundreds of millions--
perhaps $1 billion--in damage to property and infrastructure. I have 
visited many of the most hard-hit towns, and I have been shocked and 
moved by the extent of the damage I saw. Irene will go down in history 
as one of the very worst natural disasters ever to hit the State of 
Vermont. Let me share a few facts with you about the extent of the 
damage.
  Already, more than 5,200 Vermonters have registered with FEMA. 
Remember, we are a State of only 630,000 people and approximately 
200,000 households, and yet more than 5,200 Vermonters have already 
registered with FEMA.
  More than 700 homes were severely damaged or completely destroyed--
700 in a State which has about 200,000 households.
  Between 1,500 and 2,000 families have been displaced, their housing 
uncertain as we approach Vermont's brutally cold winter season. It is 
beginning to get cold in Vermont.
  More than 73,000 homes were left without electricity--one-third of 
all of the homes in our State. Tens of thousands of Vermonters lost 
their phone service, and in some areas these services still have not 
been fully restored.
  More than 2,000 roads were badly damaged--2,000 roads--including 135 
segments of State highways. More than 300 bridges--300 bridges--were 
damaged. Hundreds of roads and bridges remain closed, while many others 
are only open to emergency vehicles today. Some towns still have 
limited access because the roads and bridges that link them to the 
outside world were destroyed.
  Further, dozens of town libraries, townhalls, and municipal and 
volunteer fire departments have been damaged or destroyed. Ninety 
public schools could not open on time. The last one is just now opening 
for the year.
  Hundreds of businesses and more than 360 farms with more than 15,000 
acres of farmland have been damaged, tearing at the fabric of our rural 
economy.
  Our Amtrak and freight services were completely suspended, as 
railbeds literally washed into rivers. One Amtrak line is still down 
today.
  The largest State office complex was completely flooded and is closed 
until further notice. Mr. President, 1,600 State employees cannot go to 
work in that building. Important files and computer systems have been 
ruined, disrupting the ability of the State to deliver critical State 
functions.
  I know that, as in times past, we will pick up the pieces in Vermont 
and restore our homes and businesses. And I have to tell you that if 
there is any silver lining out of that disaster, it is the fact that in 
community after community, people came out, worked together, and 
participated in cleanup efforts, supported each other. People from the 
northern part of the State, which was hit less severely, came down to 
the southern part of the State to help. Strangers helped strangers. It 
was an extraordinary effort of people coming together. But the simple 
fact is, if a State such as Vermont has communities that are 
devastated, a State such as New Jersey has communities that are 
devastated, we cannot do it alone. The scale of this disaster is too 
overwhelming for a State of the size of Vermont.
  The Federal Government has long played an important role in disaster 
recovery. That is something we have known for many years and we have 
seen time after time after time. When our fellow citizens in Louisiana 
and the gulf coast suffered the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, 
people in Vermont were there for them, and I can tell you how many 
people told me we have to do everything we can to protect the people 
who were devastated by Katrina. When the citizens of Joplin, MO, were 
hit by deadly tornadoes, people on the west coast were there for them. 
And, of course, when terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11, we 
were all there for New York City. That is what being a nation is about.
  The name of our country is the United States of America--``united,'' 
u-n-i-t-e-d--and if that name means anything, it means when disaster 
strikes one part of the country and communities are devastated, people 
are hurt, bridges and roads are out, farmers cannot produce the food, 
we as a nation rally together to support those communities. That is 
what States impacted by Irene expect from Congress because that is what 
being a nation is about. Disaster relief, funded on an emergency basis, 
is what Congress has done for decades, and it is what Congress must do 
now.
  The Senate did the right thing in quickly passing a $6.9 billion 
disaster relief supplemental appropriations bill, and I wish to thank 
all of the people active in that, from Senator Reid, to Senator 
Landrieu, to Senator Leahy--all of the people who made that happen. 
They did a great job.

[[Page 14030]]

  Does that bill have everything I would like to see in a disaster 
relief bill for the State of Vermont? No, it does not, quite frankly. 
But it is a very good bill. It is an urgently needed bill. It is an 
important step forward in the right direction. I commend, again, all of 
those Senators who played an active role in moving that bill along, 
including 10 Senate Republicans.
  Disaster aid should not be a partisan issue, but it seems the House 
Republicans are intent on making it one. The disaster funding the House 
is likely to pass this week is totally inadequate and will not address 
the magnitude of the damages inflicted by Hurricane Irene or the 
backlog in FEMA funding that existed before it.
  To my mind, it is an outrage that for the first time in modern 
American history House Republicans want to have a budget debate over 
disaster assistance. They threaten to block urgently needed aid unless 
the cost of that help is offset by cuts in other needed programs. They 
want to use Hurricane Irene as another excuse for a budget fight. And 
think about the precedent that sets. What happens if tomorrow there is, 
God forbid, a disaster in New Mexico or a disaster in Colorado? Does 
that mean we should be cutting education or environmental protection in 
order to pay for help to New Mexico or Colorado or California? If there 
is a major earthquake someplace in this country and communities are 
devastated, do we cut back on the needs of the children? Do we cut back 
on Medicare and have that huge debate in order to pay for disaster 
relief?
  Historically, the U.S. Congress has said--and what they said was 
right--that when disaster strikes, we as a nation come together and we 
provide the support to those communities which have been hurt to get 
them back on their feet. That is what we have done in this great 
country, and I am offended that some of my Republican colleagues in the 
House suddenly start thinking we need a major budget debate for every 
disaster that is hitting this country. That is wrong. That is 
extraordinarily bad public policy. That is, frankly, unpatriotic and 
not what the United States is about. Yes, of course, we must continue 
to address our deficit problem but not on the backs of communities in 
Vermont, New Jersey, North Carolina, or other States that have been 
devastated by Hurricane Irene. For those States and communities, we 
must get them emergency help, and we must get it to them as quickly as 
possible.
  Amazingly--I must say this--this talk about budget offsets for 
disaster relief comes from some of the same people who repeatedly and 
conveniently ignore their own actions when it suits them. Congress 
provided $800 billion to bail out Wall Street banks. I did not hear any 
discussion about offsets when it came to bailing out Wall Street. 
Congress extended huge tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest 
people in this country, driving up the deficit. I did not hear any call 
for offsets when we gave tax breaks to billionaires and large 
corporations. The United States is spending today $10 billion a year on 
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including billions to rebuild those 
countries. I did not hear any call for offsets when it came to the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Let me conclude by saying this: This country has its share of 
problems. We all know that. But if we forsake the essence of what we 
are as a nation; that is, we stand together when disaster strikes, if 
we forgo that, if we no longer live up to that ideal, I worry very much 
about the future of our great Nation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The majority leader is 
recognized.


                            disaster relief

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed three important 
pieces of bipartisan legislation. It was really quite a productive 
week. We reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration, which kept 
80,000 workers, including safety inspectors, on the job. We passed a 
highway bill that keeps 1.8 million people at work building roads and 
bridges and dams. We reached a bipartisan agreement to rush relief to 
communities devastated by floods, tornadoes, and wildfires. So I was 
hopeful, as this week began, that it would be productive. I thought 
Congress might be able to set aside party politics to accomplish the 
important work of this Nation. Instead, the tea party has taken over 
again. The tea party Republicans have once again allowed partisanship 
to rear its ugly head.
  Now House Republicans, obsessed with pleasing a group of radicals--
the tea party, they are called--are refusing to give the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency the funding it needs to reconstruct ravaged 
communities across this great country, and they are threatening to shut 
down the government if they do not get what they want.
  It is bad enough that we cannot agree that victims of floods and 
fires should get the help they need without delay.
  We cannot even agree on what we have already agreed to. We spent 
months this spring and summer negotiating a deficit reduction agreement 
that allowed Congress to appropriate more than $11 billion in disaster 
aid for next year. After an earthquake, weeks of wildfires, and a 
hurricane that slammed the eastern seaboard, we are asking to free up 
$6.9 billion in emergency funds to help Americans in need.
  There is a reason we have agreed in the past that disaster funding 
should be set aside from the regular budget process. There is a reason 
we agreed, as part of July's deficit reduction agreement, it should be 
set aside once again. Farmers who have lost their crops to floods, 
families who have lost their homes to hurricanes should not be used as 
pawns in a budget-bidding war.
  Over the last two decades, almost 90 percent of the money Congress 
has authorized for disaster relief has been done outside the regular 
budget process. Why? Because we cannot determine what Mother Nature is 
going to do. We do the best we can. But who would have ever dreamed 
Irene would hit when it did, with the devastation it did. Who would 
have ever dreamed a tornado would level the town of Joplin, MO?
  We have done the best we can. I ask my Republican colleagues: Why 
should today be any different than the past? FEMA is running out of 
money. That is the bottom line. On Monday, they will be broke. The 
President declared emergencies in 48 of the 50 States this year. We 
have had 10 disasters already that have cost more than $1 billion each. 
It has been 30 years since we have had so many large natural disasters.
  As of this morning, FEMA's disaster fund had almost nothing left. It 
will be broke on Monday. The agency that rushes to help when disaster 
strikes will be out of money in just a day or two--I repeat, Monday. We 
are still in the middle of the hurricane season. Turn on the Weather 
Channel and see why it is so important that we get FEMA the resources 
it needs to react quickly to whatever Mother Nature sends our way.
  FEMA has already halted reconstruction projects in 40 States to free 
funds to react to immediate needs of communities affected by the most 
recent disasters. Because of these delays, FEMA will take longer to 
rebuild bridges in New Hampshire and schools in Missouri and homes in 
Texas, all because of Republican stubbornness.
  I am stunned. We have Senators from States that have been devastated 
by these disasters--one State, thousands of fires, 2,000 homes burned. 
Why wouldn't people vote to help people who have had such devastation? 
All politics.
  FEMA has been there for people when crops they have planted and 
counted on to make a living were drowned by floods. The Federal 
Government has always been there to help Americans in their hour of 
greatest need, when their homes where their children were raised, spent 
holidays, and made memories had burned to the ground or been washed 
away or blown away.
  But because of the delays, FEMA will no longer be able to rebuild the 
bridges, for example, in the State of New Hampshire. I just heard my 
friend, the junior Senator from Vermont, talk about Vermont. Vermont 
has had almost 200 bridges washed away--gone.

[[Page 14031]]

Texas has had those fires. FEMA has been there when schools studied in 
and bridges driven on have been rocked by earthquakes or blown away by 
tornadoes. Never before has Congress tried to nickel and dime the 
victims of these disasters.
  Americans have watched all they had go up in smoke or be washed or 
blown away. That is what Republicans are doing today. They are 
shortchanging communities that can least afford the delays of partisan 
gridlock.
  Senate majority leader George Mitchell said: ``Bipartisanship means 
you work together to work it out.'' American families and communities 
are relying on us to work together to work it out and holding out hope 
that we will not disappoint them.
  Go back a month. We were struggling, struggling hard, to work out an 
agreement that in years past has been simple. We were going to just 
raise the debt limit in this country on bills we had already 
accumulated. It took 3 months. But we got it done. One of the things we 
did was we said we will no longer have fights during this next fiscal 
year on funding the government. We agreed on the numbers.
  What the House could not do in good conscience directly they are 
doing indirectly. They are sending us a short-term continuing 
resolution to fund the government until the middle part of November. 
But because they have all these extremists in the Republican majority 
in the House, they could not do that. They could not do that. They 
could not send us what they had already agreed upon.
  In fact, they put an addition on the bill, a so-called rider on the 
bill, saying the Senate is only going to be able to raise the debt 
ceiling if it agrees on their number on emergencies, recognizing that 
their number will only last a few weeks. Here is what they did also 
that was so mean-spirited. As I have outlined in detail, we have not 
paid for these disasters because they are emergencies. They are not in 
the normal budget process.
  But the House took money for more efficient vehicles--they took that 
money and said: We are going to pay for $1 billion for the year 2011. 
The year 2011 ends--fiscal year ends--the end of this month, just a few 
days from now.
  Everyone has said, we just need a few million dollars to take care of 
it until the end of this month. As I have indicated, we have enough 
money until Monday. But that is all. The end of the month is not 
Monday. They took $1 billion, when only a little bit was needed, and 
stripped our ability to create jobs.
  I spoke to Steny Hoyer in the House. He said they are taking away 
52,000 jobs from the American people by doing this. They take $1 
billion and pay for this. But just to show further meanness, they take 
$\1/2\ billion and rescind it. It does not go toward the debt. It does 
not go for anything. They just rescind it.
  Then, of course, the year 2012, they put in an amount of money that 
does not go very far with all these disasters, a few weeks' worth. So 
we will be back having the same fight again, which is so senseless, so 
unnecessary. I would hope the House of Representatives--there will be a 
vote today around 4 or 5 o'clock. I know it will be a close vote. But I 
hope people in the Senate will understand how important this vote is. 
We are going to have a vote, as we have indicated, on the continuing 
resolution to strip out the mean-spirited amendment they have in it, 
take it out and put in what has already passed here by a substantial 
majority.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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. 642

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier, I sent an amendment to the desk. 
This amendment will constrain the growth of this domestic spending 
program. My amendment is fairly simple. It tightens the nexus between 
TAA benefits and actual jobs lost because of trade. It does this by 
changing the eligibility criteria from one that only requires that 
trade ``contribute importantly'' to job loss to a more restrictive 
criteria that the job loss be ``substantially caused'' by trade.
  Under the current program, the worker only has to demonstrate that 
imports from or shifts in production to a foreign country--what many 
folks would call the ordinary course of business--``contributed 
importantly'' to their job loss.
  So what does ``contributed importantly'' actually mean? The TAA 
Program holds that the contributed importantly standard is met if trade 
is a cause, which is important but not necessarily more important than 
any other cause of the job loss.
  That does not sound like a tight nexus to me, certainly not a tight 
nexus to trade to me. Believe me, these fears are not theoretical. Let 
me give a real-life example. I am sure, by now, everyone is familiar 
with Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar firm that was lauded by President 
Obama as the poster child for his stimulus and green jobs plans.
  It turns out, now that Solyndra is in bankruptcy, many of its 
employees are applying for job-training benefits through TAA. To fully 
understand this lunacy, let's take a look at recent history.
  Here is how Vice President Biden described the administration's ill-
considered plan to direct over one-half billion taxpayer dollars for 
loan guarantees for Solyndra:

       The Recovery Act is working and you're going to see it work 
     right on that site. The loan to Solyndra will allow you to 
     build a new manufacturing facility and with it almost 
     immediately generate 3,000 new well-paying construction jobs. 
     And once your facility opens, there will be about 1,000 
     permanent new jobs here at Solyndra and in the surrounding 
     business community and hundreds more to install your growing 
     output of solar panels throughout the country.

  Well, that didn't quite happen. Instead, the firm failed, potentially 
taking over a half billion taxpayer dollars with it. Those ``permanent 
new jobs''? Well, not quite. The workers are all unemployed because 
their ``permanent'' jobs no longer exist.
  It gets worse. According to the Wall Street Journal, the stimulus 
loans themselves were a major cause of Solyndra's bankruptcy. Here is 
the headline on the chart: ``Loan Was Solyndra's Undoing.''
  In selling the half billion dollar loan to Solyndra, Vice President 
Biden made it clear that these were the jobs of the future, saying:

       We are journeying, in a sense, closer and closer to the 
     sun, to a more solar-powered America. And as we do, we're 
     leaving a shadow of a less efficient, more damaging past 
     behind us.

  We all know--or should know--what happened to the arrogant Icarus 
when he flew too close to the Sun.

       Despite the Vice President's exhortations, what happened to 
     Solyndra? Solyndra is set to become an even bigger drain on 
     our taxpayers.

  How is that possible? Through the magic of TAA, of course. It turns 
out that the now-unemployed former Solyndra employees have applied for 
trade adjustment assistance. The irony here is profound. The 
administration is now considering whether to grant these Solyndra 
workers TAA benefits because competition from China ``contributed 
importantly'' to their job loss. That is ridiculous, frankly.
  Here is another Wall Street Journal article, entitled ``Solyndra Was 
Always Likely to Fail.'' You can see in the photo what a beautiful 
plant it was--with all of your taxpayer dollars.
  In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, the CEO from 
another solar company--tenKsolar--explained that everyone in the solar 
business knew Solyndra's business model would not work and their solar 
technology was too costly.
  That didn't stop the White House from giving this company a $535 
million taxpayer loan--money that is basically gone now. This was 
despite the fact that the government's own analysts had predicted 
months ago that Solyndra would fail in September. Well, it did.
  Again, look at the photo of that beautiful building that was built 
with

[[Page 14032]]

taxpayer dollars. It is pretty hard to not admire it, to be honest with 
you.
  The fact that TAA benefits are even being considered for Solyndra 
shows how tenuous the nexus between job loss and trade can be--and 
workers can still get these expanded benefits, on top of unemployment 
insurance.
  How can Solyndra workers get TAA, when the business collapsed due to 
a bad business plan and an ill-conceived loan of taxpayer money? That 
was the cause of Solyndra going under. China imports, under the current 
TAA program, however, might be construed by ambitious Department of 
Labor bureaucrats to have ``contributed importantly'' to Solyndra 
shutting down--despite the fact that the primary cause was the business 
model and the government's intervention.
  This needs to stop. We can do better. If we are going to continue to 
fund this domestic spending, let's at least make sure its benefits go 
to those workers whose job loss is actually caused by trade. That is 
what this amendment will do. It will return the TAA threshold standard 
to the ``substantial cause'' level. It would require that trade would 
have to be a ``substantial cause'' of the work dislocation. This 
standard was included in reforms advocated for by President Reagan that 
were included in the bipartisan Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981. 
That deficit reduction act included the largest package of spending 
cuts in history--at that time. President Reagan had noted the 
unfairness of treating one class of workers who lose their job due to 
foreign competition better than their neighbor, who lost his job due to 
domestic competition, so he tightened the threshold criteria to be 
eligible for the TAA Program.
  By returning to the narrower TAA threshold, this amendment would put 
reasonable constraints on the program to prevent it from expanding into 
another out-of-control spending program.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because I think it 
makes sense. There is no question it will save taxpayer dollars and 
make people act more honestly with regard to the use of taxpayer 
dollars and, in the end, I think it will work better than the current 
approach that my friends on the other side wish to have.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                              Disaster Aid

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am here to speak about disaster aid and 
the acute need we have in my State for assistance to deal with a 
disaster that occurred earlier this summer in Minot, ND.
  These are pictures from the valley in Minot, ND. Minot is constructed 
on two hills, with a valley in between, with the Souris River flowing 
through. We have just had the worst flood ever in history, by a long 
margin. The Corps of Engineers was in yesterday to see me. They 
calculate that this was a 430-year flood. A flood of this magnitude 
would only come every 430 years. Certainly, it is beyond anything we 
have ever seen in recorded history. They say the volume in this flood 
was three times the previous record; the volume of water was three 
times the previous record.
  These are just a handful of the homes in Minot that were inundated; 
and 4,000 families lost their homes. These are modest, middle-class 
families, and the homes averaged $160,000 or $170,000 in value. Yet 
they are devastated, because all they are eligible for is FEMA 
assistance.
  As the occupant of the chair knows well, FEMA was never designed to 
be a stand-alone program to recover from disaster. FEMA was designed to 
work in concert with insurance programs--homeowner's insurance, flood 
insurance. In this case, with a flood, homeowner's insurance doesn't 
help you at all. You get nothing on your homeowner's insurance. Then 
the burden falls to flood insurance. In this entire town of 40,000 
people, there were less than 400 flood insurance policies. Some may 
say, why didn't they have flood insurance?
  That is a reasonable question to ask. The answer is very simple: No 
one thought they needed flood insurance. Flood insurance was not 
required because they were behind a levee that was supposed to protect 
against a hundred-year flood event, and actually something more than 
that. In addition, new dams, since the last major flood, have been 
built in Canada to prevent such flooding--dams that were, in part, paid 
for by the United States.
  There was no reason for people to believe they needed flood 
insurance. As a result, very few had it. The bottom line is that the 
most these people, who have had their homes destroyed, can get--and 
believe me, these homes are destroyed. Most of the 4,000 families who 
lost their homes had 10 feet of water on their homes for weeks. I have 
been there. I have seen these homes, and I have smelled them. It is 
horrific. To restore these homes, you have to take them down to the 
studs and start over again--with $30,000 at the most.
  If you are a young couple starting out, and you have a $170,000 home 
and a $140,000 mortgage, and the house is destroyed, and it costs 
$140,000 to rebuild, and you have $30,000, you have a big problem. 
Maybe you are like my cousin and her family, who had just sold their 
home, and then it was flooded--but it flooded before closing. So guess 
what. They had gone and bought a new home because they sold their 
existing home. Then their existing home was flooded and, of course, the 
person never goes to closing. So now they have two homes, two 
mortgages. This is a neighborhood of middle-class and lower middle-
class families. They are devastated.
  The question is, are we going to help? In the past, we have. In 
Katrina, we not only provided FEMA disaster funding, we also provided 
CDBG additional emergency funding. That is precisely what we did in the 
1997 flood in Grand Forks, ND, a 500-year flood. We provided additional 
CDBG funding. For that town alone, we provided over $170 million of 
CDBG emergency funding to help deal with the catastrophic situation 
there. We have provided much more than that to Katrina victims.
  What we are asking here is not unprecedented, and it is not something 
that hasn't been done before. It is absolutely needed.
  This is the headline from the Fargo Forum, the biggest newspaper in 
our State, about what is happening in Minot, ND: ``11,000 People Forced 
Out of Their Homes.'' It may not sound like many in a State such as 
California or New York, but in North Dakota that is one-sixtieth of the 
entire State's population. That is over a quarter of the population of 
this city, Minot, ND. ``The Rising Souris Moves Up Evacuation Time.'' 
Eleven thousand people were forced out of their homes. When they came 
back, they found an absolutely unmitigated disaster.
  This ran in the Minot Daily News this year: ``Projection: 
Devastation. Minot Residents Evacuate as Historic Rise in Souris River 
Approaches.''
  This shows some of the preparation. The people tried to get out of 
town and out of these homes before it hit.
  Then we have this headline from June 21: ``It's a Sad Day.'' It is a 
sad day because the crest was increased, in 48 hours, by 10 feet. In 
other words, the city was protected to a certain level, and then Canada 
lost control of their major reservoir. Their Premier told our Governor 
that the floodgates are wide open, there is a wall of water coming your 
way. Indeed there was. They increased, in a 48-hour period, the 
projection of how high water levels would be by 10 feet.
  There is no way humanly possible to build up defenses by 10 feet in 
48 hours. It cannot happen. There is no possible way. With miles and 
miles of levees, can you imagine trying to build that up 10 feet in 
just a matter of hours? It was a sad day, Mr. President.
  Here is the result--massive flooding, flooding that represented an 
unusual flood in the sense that usually when you have a flood, the 
water comes and goes. In this case, the water came and the water 
stayed.
  This is downtown Minot, ND. This is home, by the way, to one of the 
two Air Force bases that are home to the Nation's B-52s. It is also the 
home to 150 Minute Men III missiles, which are an important part of the 
deterrence of the United States.

[[Page 14033]]

  You can see that this downtown area was devastated by floodwaters. 
The flood came--and stayed and stayed and stayed and stayed. Here you 
can see rooftops, in a picture taken by Brett Miller of the North 
Dakota National Guard while flying over Minot, ND. I have been to the 
schools that have been flooded, and two of them were absolutely 
destroyed. They have to be rebuilt. You can't possibly rehab them in 
any kind of cost-effective way.
  In many cases, all you see are roofs here, because a majority of the 
4,000 homes that were destroyed had 10 feet of water on them. For weeks 
and weeks, many of these homes had 6 to 10 feet of water on them. 
Anybody who knows what water can do when it sits and is there for 
weeks. When you come back, you have mold everywhere. The only possible 
way to get it out is to take the house down to its studs.
  Mr. President, let me just close on this photo from June 24 of this 
year. Again, the Minot Daily News headline: ``Swamped.'' Indeed, we 
were absolutely swamped. Water starts to inundate the valley. ``The 
Corps Says Souris Flows to Double by Saturday.'' These are the 
headlines people were coping with in Minot, ND.
  This devastation will not be addressed for months to come. People are 
already moving in to temporary FEMA trailers. Those FEMA trailers--
which are welcome because without them people would have no shelter--it 
should be understood, are going to be tough to live in during a North 
Dakota winter. The people living in those trailers are going to have a 
tough time in a North Dakota winter. So we need help.
  Yes, we need to replenish the FEMA fund, absolutely. But more than 
that, we desperately need additional emergency CDBG funding. That is 
what was used effectively for Katrina, and that was used effectively in 
the horrible flood that hit Grand Forks, ND, 1997. So we are asking our 
colleagues to do what we have done for them in disaster after disaster. 
We stood with them, we joined with them, we supported them, and we are 
asking that for our people at this time.
  Senator Hoeven and I have an amendment for $1 billion of CDBG 
funding. We have a markup occurring in the Appropriations Committee 
this afternoon, and I understand they are going to agree to $400 
million. But that is nationwide. The need in North Dakota alone is $235 
million, according to our State's Governor. The need for emergency CDBG 
funding in my State alone is $235 million, and the Appropriations 
Committee is about to agree to a level of funding nationwide of $400 
million.
  Mr. President, there is a chasm--a chasm--between the need and the 
resources available. We are going to have to do better than this, or 
these 4,000 families in North Dakota who have had their homes destroyed 
are going to have a pretty miserable Christmas and a pretty miserable 
new year. We are better than that. We have proven so repeatedly. I hope 
we are able to prove it again.
  I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we charge 
time during the quorum call equally between the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair, and again I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I will be speaking 
to in just a moment.
  First, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial in the Arizona 
Republic from September 21, by Robert Robb, the subject of which is 
President Obama's debt-cutting plan fails to tell the whole story, be 
inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the amendment I will be talking about has 
been filed. It is amendment No. 645. But before I describe that 
amendment--which I believe and hope we will be able to vote on when we 
have our series of votes later on this afternoon--I want to respond to 
one thing the leader said in his remarks after lunch.
  He was talking about the continuing resolution, which we believe will 
be coming over from the House of Representatives later on today. That 
continuing resolution, of course, has funding for the various disasters 
which have befallen various parts of our country.
  I think the leader has indicated that he is going to be attempting to 
amend that House product with an increase in that spending. He asked 
the question rather rhetorically: Why aren't those Senators who have 
disasters in their States willing to vote for my increased spending 
amendment? Then he answered his own question, saying it is all 
politics.
  Mr. President, first of all, as you know, we are not supposed to ever 
question the motives of fellow Senators. I am sure that isn't what the 
leader had in mind, but I would suggest to the leader it is not 
politics that causes people to vote against his amendment. If it were 
politics, they would be voting for his amendment. Those Members who 
have disasters in their States would say, surely, they want even more 
money so they can be sure to cover all those disasters. So if it were 
politics, they would probably be voting yes.
  I suggest the reason they are voting no is because of principle. 
First of all, because there is plenty of money in the House continuing 
resolution to cover all of the disasters that have already occurred and 
those that could be anticipated over the course of the next 7 or 8 
weeks, which is the period of time covered by the bill; and, secondly, 
we should never spend more money than necessary. I will stand corrected 
if I am wrong, but I do not believe the majority leader's amendment has 
a calculation of why all of the money he proposes is necessary based 
upon emergencies or disasters that have occurred.
  So I just wanted to make sure my colleagues appreciate if and when 
such a vote occurs, at least for those people with whom I have spoken, 
they are going to be voting on principle and on the fact there is 
plenty of money for disasters. There is no reason to put in more money 
than is needed, especially in our time of a very difficult deficit 
situation.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From Real Clear Politics, Sept. 21, 2011]

                   Obama's Duplicitous Debt Proposal

                            (By Robert Robb)

       President Barack Obama's debt reduction plan could be 
     titled, The Audacity of Duplicity.
       According to Obama, he is proposing $4 trillion in debt 
     reduction over the next 10 years, with there being $2 in 
     spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
       Where to begin?
       Half of the president's claimed debt reduction comes from 
     policies already in place. Obama says $1 trillion will be 
     saved by winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 
     other words, Obama wants credit for reducing debt that was 
     never going to be incurred.
       Another $1 trillion is from the agreement that was reached 
     to increase the debt ceiling. But that agreement didn't 
     really reduce the debt by $1 trillion. It simply adopted 
     future spending caps that would have that effect. However, 
     there were no new laws adopted that would actually reduce 
     spending. The caps are unenforceable promises to do something 
     unspecific in the future.
       Obama is actually only proposing $2.1 trillion in new 
     stuff. Of that, nearly $1.6 trillion is increased taxes. So, 
     he's actually proposing $3 in tax increases for every $1 in 
     spending cuts.
       But that still doesn't tell the real story. The ``spending 
     cuts'' aren't really all spending cuts. They are just things 
     other than tax increases, and there's over $135 billion in 
     fee

[[Page 14034]]

     increases. Those may be warranted, but they aren't spending 
     cuts.
       So, Obama actually is proposing over $1.7 trillion in 
     additional federal revenue, making the ratio $4 in increased 
     taxes and fees for every $1 in spending cuts.
       But that still doesn't tell the whole story. Obama, of 
     course, is purposing increased stimulus spending now. Net, 
     Obama is only proposing to decrease actual federal spending 
     by about $245 billion over 10 years. So, the real ratio is $7 
     in increased taxes and fees for every $1 in actual spending 
     cuts.
       In short, Obama has proposed a massive tax increase while 
     doing very little to control federal spending.
       The bulk of the tax increases, $1.2 trillion, fall on 
     individuals making over $200,000 a year. Supposedly, their 
     tax treatment would only be returned to the levels prevailing 
     during the Clinton prosperity, but that's another bit of 
     duplicity.
       Obama proposes that the top two tax rates be returned to 
     Clinton-era levels, but doesn't stop there. He would also 
     limit the deductions they take, which wasn't the case during 
     the Clinton bliss. And his health care bill already socked 
     this group with an increase in payroll taxes of nearly 1 
     percent on wage income and an investment income tax increase 
     of nearly 4 percent.
       In short, Obama is advocating tax rates for those earning 
     more than $200,000 a year much higher than the Clinton-era 
     rates, which Bill Clinton himself described as too high.
       This is supposedly so millionaires and billionaires pay 
     their fair share. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 
     1 percent of tax filers has 16 percent of the country's 
     income, but pay 24 percent of all federal taxes and 35 
     percent of federal individual income taxes.
       According to Obama mythology, millionaires and billionaires 
     pay lower tax rates than average Jacks and Jills. According 
     to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent pays 18 percent 
     of their income in federal income taxes. The middle quintile 
     pays less than 3 percent. Those below that actually get more 
     money back than they pay in.
       Obama seems really worked up over the fact that investment 
     income is taxed at a lower rate than wage income. But that's 
     not really the case. Dividends are taxed at the corporate 
     level before they are distributed to individuals, when they 
     are taxed again. Capital gains are taxed on their nominal 
     value, ignoring the effect of intervening inflation.
       If Obama were truly interested in a bipartisan down payment 
     on debt reduction, he could have anchored his proposal in the 
     recommendations of his debt commission. The debt commission, 
     however, recommended about half of what Obama proposes in 
     additional federal revenue and raised in a way that lowers 
     rates across the board, including for millionaires and 
     billionaires.
       Obama's interests, however, clearly lie elsewhere.


                 Amendment No. 645 to Amendment No. 633

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the amendment, as I said, is numbered 645, 
and I will be discussing the contents of the amendment and why I think 
it should be addressed. But let me precede that with this point.
  I think the bill before us, the TAA bill, actually deserved greater 
scrutiny than the process allowed. There was an opportunity for some 
more fundamental changes in the TAA Program than occurred. The only 
changes are pretty rudimentary, and I don't think anyone can contend 
they will save substantial amounts of money or represent fundamental 
reform. The process of putting this all together was by people who 
supported TAA, not people like me who have a real problem with TAA. So 
it is probably no surprise the program isn't substantially reformed.
  Specifically, on the TAA training, which is part of what I am 
focusing on, no work was done to reform the training funding to reflect 
the fact there are already over 40 programs dedicated to worker 
training. One of our colleagues, Senator Coburn, has done some great 
work in this area to highlight the problem. Instead, the substitute 
just increases overall training funding and does very minimal reform.
  More broadly, there is little evidence the TAA programs are actually 
effective. That is what I will speak to with regard to the piece I will 
be eliminating, hopefully, with the amendment I am proposing. We are 
going to spend over $1 billion on the so-called enhanced TAA provisions 
in the substitute and another $7 billion on the baseline program. So $1 
billion on the enhanced provisions, $7 billion on the baseline program, 
and we don't even know whether it actually helps our citizens.
  I have filed other amendments that I may or may not bring up, 
depending upon what our schedule is, but at a minimum I hope the word 
of the TAA supporters can be relied upon as we move forward. For 
example, the substitute is intended to terminate baseline TAA after 
2014. But due to CBO scorekeeping, CBO estimates that Congress could 
actually spend another $7.4 billion for the years 2015 to 2021--years 
after all the TAA is scheduled to be terminated. So I plan to work with 
the CBO to ensure these savings are actually extracted from the 
baseline.
  This amendment I speak of repeals the TAA for the Firms Program. It 
would repeal that as of October 1, 2011--in other words, the end of the 
fiscal year. The amendment would only save about $16 million a year, 
but I think it serves as a test of one's real commitment to reform. I 
propose eliminating this small piece of the TAA that President Barack 
Obama proposed be eliminated in his budget.
  The President's budget recommendations for this year specifically 
recommend termination of the TAA for Firms Program, and I thought--
since we have all talked about how our constituents keep telling us 
they want us to come back and work together to get things done--here is 
an opportunity where a Democratic President and a Republican Senator 
have proposed something, and it is an opportunity for colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to get together and say, yes, there is at least 
one program--it is a small one, $16 million--that ought to be 
eliminated.
  What are the reasons for the President's request this program be 
dropped? According to his ``Termination, Reductions and Savings''--this 
was submitted as part of the fiscal year 2012 Federal budget--the first 
point is the resources would be better spent elsewhere. Here is what 
the President's budget says:

       The administration believes it is more effective to direct 
     EDA's funding towards programs that make investments to 
     promote globally competitive regions, rather than to assist 
     specific firms that have been harmed by trade.

  The budget also made the point the centers are too expensive and they 
are poorly selected. Here is what the President's budget said:

       The non-profit Trade Adjustment Centers that administer the 
     program are chosen non-competitively and have high overhead 
     rates.

  So the first point is the President's budget says: Let's get rid of 
this program. It is not run well, and it is not centered properly on 
where we should be centered. The second reason for elimination of this 
proposal is the EDA's own budget request to Congress for fiscal year 
2012 clearly shows other programs are more effective and less costly 
than this program--TAA for Firms--and I will quote them directly:

       The Economic Adjustment Assistance program, which is the 
     most flexible tool in EDA's toolbox and provides a wide range 
     of technical, planning, and public works and infrastructure 
     assistance and can get money out more quickly and with far 
     lower overhead costs, meaning more help for the communities 
     that need it.

  The third reason I propose eliminating this small program is the TAA 
for Firms Program doesn't require any kind of significant trade impact 
for eligibility. In fact, according to the program's own Web site that 
outlines frequently asked questions, here is what it says:

       Question: Are only firms seriously affected by imports able 
     to participate? Answer: No. We work with a variety of 
     manufacturers and, for some, imports represent only a minor 
     challenge. Regardless of the degree of impact, a firm may be 
     eligible if it experienced sales and employment declines at 
     least partially due to imports over the last two years.

  So that is the third problem. The fourth problem: Obviously, there 
are always bound to be some success stories, but the program's 2010 
annual report raises serious questions about its effectiveness. For 
example, this annual report--by the way, it was required by the 
stimulus bill--highlights that only 56 percent of firms in 2010 
actually completed the program. That means a whopping 44 percent quit 
for various reasons.
  The annual report also shows that firms that started the program in 
2008 had little marketed success. After 1 year, firms that completed 
the program had average employment decrease by 10 percent and an 
average

[[Page 14035]]

productivity increase of 11 percent, which is only slightly better than 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics' national average for the manufacturing 
industry of a decrease in employment of 13 percent and an increase in 
productivity of 4 percent. After 2 years, program graduates' average 
employment dropped by 16 percent and average productivity increased by 
3 percent, while the national average for manufacturing firms saw 
employment drop only 12 percent and average productivity increase by 6 
percent. In other words, after 2 years, firms not in the program were 
doing better than firms in the program despite all the money we are 
spending on it.
  The fifth reason. While it is just authorization language here, 
repeal does save money. The TAA for firms centers will close and their 
employees will be reassigned.
  We have to reduce the cost and reach of government if we are going to 
prevent fiscal collapse, and that is the primary reason I am focused on 
this program. It is not a huge amount of money. Under the substitute, 
the program would be continued at 2002 levels or, in other words, about 
$16 million a year. But that is money we don't have to spend, as the 
President's own budget said, because this program doesn't work well and 
in effect, as I am saying, wastes taxpayer money.
  So if we can't eliminate a program such as this--a program the 
administration wants to terminate, one EDA says could be done better 
with other programs, that doesn't require any great connection or 
impact by trade imports, that has a questionable track record with high 
failure rates and outcomes at least no better than firms that don't 
participate--then I am greatly discouraged about the Senate's ability 
to effect any kind of actual reform.
  I urge my colleagues' attention to this. I know some will say we 
can't make any amendment to this whatsoever or it won't be accepted by 
the House. You ask my House colleagues whether they would support this 
amendment. My guess is they would say they would be happy to support 
this amendment. I hope we will be able to vote for it this afternoon 
and that my colleagues will support amendment No. 645.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be made 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. KYL] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 645 to amendment No. 633.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor and join 
my colleagues who were here just a few minutes ago talking about the 
importance of robust funding and immediate funding for disaster relief 
in our country.
  Leader Reid came to the floor to explain the importance of this 
issue, followed by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, who has 
helped lead portions of his State back literally from the brink of 
destruction several times. So when a Member like Senator Conrad speaks, 
we really should listen. He has been through--excuse me--hell and back 
in parts of his State, and he really does understand what is at stake, 
and some Members who think they know about disasters and have not 
really quite experienced them in their State would be well advised to 
listen to his plea to get this done right now.
  I wish to address three specific statements that have been made on 
the floor of the Senate by my friends on the other side of the aisle 
that are, with all due respect, patently false.
  Leader McConnell came to the floor either last night or this 
morning--because it was reported in the Washington Post--and said we 
don't have to worry because Congress always does what is appropriate 
when it comes to disasters.
  I don't even know where to begin to say how false that statement is. 
And I know the leader didn't mean to mislead anyone; he just made a 
comment: We don't have to worry about this; we always do the right 
thing. I was there for Katrina and Rita. This Congress did not always 
do the right thing. There are still things Congress should have done in 
the aftermath of Katrina and Rita that have not yet been done, and 
there is a whole list of things that were done by this Congress but 2 
years too late or 3 years too late. So let me be very clear with people 
following this debate. Congress does not always do the right thing when 
it comes to disasters, and we are about ready to make another mistake, 
and it is so unnecessary and so unfortunate.
  No. 2, there is a disagreement going on about whether this is 
politics or principle. And I know our side has said and we believe 
there has to be politics involved because there is no other reason to 
explain why the House Republican leadership continues to throw a wrench 
into this when it is completely unnecessary. What is the principle they 
are fighting for, if it is a principle? The only principle I can think 
of is the principle of, when things are going smoothly, blow it up, 
because that is what they are doing.
  What do I mean by that? Let me take a minute to explain. As the 
Republican House leadership knows full well, the Senate and the House 
have already agreed--we agreed 30 days ago. Before Hurricane Irene, 
before Tropical Storm Lee, before these storms ever happened, the 
Republican and Democratic leadership agreed, in the big fight we had 
over the whole meltdown--not of the government but of the shutdown, 
almost, of the economy--we remember that, Mr. President, don't we, that 
big fight we had--in that negotiation, the leadership of both Houses, 
Republicans and Democrats, already agreed--in anticipation that we 
would be running short of FEMA money because we have been running short 
of FEMA money now for 8 months, in anticipation of that, they said in 
that agreement: We are going to carve out an $11 billion approximate 
pot of money or cap adjustment so that when we come to ask for disaster 
aid, we won't have to fight again.
  Why do we like to fight so much? I mean, I can fight, I do fight, but 
I choose not to. What is the principle the House Republicans are 
fighting for? It must be ``when things are going smoothly, let's blow 
it up.'' That is why I am so frustrated. It is an unnecessary fight to 
be having. Again, we have already made provision for $11 billion. So 
the leader puts in $6.9 billion--well within the range of this $11 
billion allowance--and lo and behold the House leadership says: 
Absolutely not. We are not doing that. We are not even going to 
consider the $6.9 billion. What we are going to do is just continue 
last year's level of funding, which was inadequate then. That is why we 
have run out of it.
  So they are going to take the inadequate level we had last year 
before all these storms happened and extend it for 6 weeks and claim 
victory and then come back after the fact and require, for one of the 
first times--not the first time in history but one of the few times in 
history--to then grab back and say: To finish the disaster money for 
2011, you have to go gut a program that is very important to some 
Members--more important to some than others but an important program.
  The House is insisting that we gut $1.5 billion of a program that is 
creating jobs in Michigan and other parts of the country. So why are we 
destroying jobs when we don't have to? Again, it must be the principle 
of, when things are going smoothly, when things are working, when the 
leadership has actually agreed, the House Republican leadership will 
just throw a wrench and really mess things up.
  Thank goodness there are 10 Republican Senators in this Chamber who 
don't follow that principle of throwing a wrench when things are going 
smoothly. They follow the principle of common sense and compassion and 
being forward-leaning when it comes to helping Americans who need our 
help. Senator Blunt, Senator Rubio, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, 
Senator

[[Page 14036]]

Murkowski, Senator Brown from Massachusetts, Senator Heller from 
Nevada, Senator Hoeven from North Dakota, Senator Toomey from 
Pennsylvania, and Senator Vitter from Louisiana--many of them have 
experienced disasters in their States in the past and remember those 
terrible days or they are experiencing them now, and they said: We 
don't follow the ``throw the wrench in the gears'' principle. We are 
going to follow the ``let's get it done'' principle. Let's get the work 
done. Let's move forward. Let's stop fighting. Let's provide immediate 
and robust funding to help our communities.
  So they voted across party lines. I have done that before. I have 
been elected now three times. I mean, you can sometimes cross party 
lines to do the right thing, find middle ground. So they did. They 
found middle ground, and we came up with the $6.9 billion package.
  Now, let me say, to answer specifically the Senator from Arizona, for 
whom I have a lot of respect, we did not pull this sum out of the air. 
This $6.9 billion, which is much more robust than the $2.6 billion the 
House wants to provide, is a much more accurate estimate based on 
actual numbers given to the Appropriations Committee, which is the 
committee of authority here, by the agencies that are in charge of the 
disasters, from Agriculture, from the Corps of Engineers. So our 
number, the 6.9 that is being ridiculed as just being pulled out of the 
air--no, contraire--it was given to us by the agencies. The number that 
came from absolutely nowhere, that has no bearing on any sense of 
reality today, is the number the House pulled up, which is last year's 
number, which was the estimate before the storms even hit. So if you 
want to argue which number is more accurate, please put your money on 
our number because you will lose this bet.
  Our number is based on actual estimates that have already been made 
of disasters that have already occurred. In fact, it doesn't even--our 
number--because we don't have the estimates in, we don't even have the 
estimates yet for Tropical Storm Lee or for Irene. It was too early. It 
takes a while for these numbers. So when I say the 6.9 is much better 
than the 2.6 and more accurate, that is true. Is it the real, actual 
number that might take us through next year? Even I can't say that and 
I am the chairman of the committee. I have more information than 
anybody in here on this. But I can tell you one thing: It is much 
better than 2.65, it is much more accurate, and at least it is based on 
realistic estimates.
  So when people on my side say: We don't even understand what the 
Republicans in the House are fighting about, it is the truth. They 
picked a fight they didn't need to pick. They are arguing over 
something that was already decided. They are rejecting their own 
government estimates of what these disasters cost because of what? On 
principle? What is the principle? The only thing I can think of--and I 
have said it five times, and I am going to say it six--it must be the 
principle of, let's throw a wrench when things are working well, and I 
think the American people are tired of it. It is exhausting.
  So we now have projects--I would like to show the projects that are 
stopped. We have a list that is literally too thick to put into the 
Record, and I am not going to ask for it to be put in the Record 
because somebody will have to stay here for days and type it in, and I 
am not going to ask the clerks to do that. But I am going to hold it up 
so people can see. These are pages and pages of projects that are 
stopped right now.
  I want to say directly to the House Member from Alabama, Mr. 
Aderholt, who is the chairman, my counterpart, there are pages of 
projects here in Alabama, in his own district, that are stopped, and he 
is not helping by supporting last year's numbers for this year's 
disasters. I hope he will rethink and start arguing not for his party 
but for his State. Sometimes we have to put our parties aside and fight 
hard for our districts and our State. I have done that before. I think 
it is the right way to do it.
  These are pages and pages of projects that have been stopped. They 
are finished. They are not finished forever, we hope, but they are 
stopped--roads, libraries, bridges. Talk about jobs, most of these are 
done by small businesses, as we know. There is not any government 
agency that swoops in to do these projects in small towns. They are 
local contractors that get contracts with FEMA or the Corps of 
Engineers for the work. They are issuing pink slips for these projects 
right now. One would think that would motivate people. If compassion 
doesn't motivate them, if the morality of the situation doesn't 
motivate them, maybe thousands of jobs would motivate them. It seems 
none of those are working. I am running out of enticements.
  All these projects have been stopped. Will the $2.6 billion the House 
is offering start these projects again? Yes, it will--their offer they 
put on the table, that they are pushing us to accept, against which we 
are fighting hard. We do not want to accept it, but we will not shut 
the government down over this. We are pushing back as hard as we can 
without shutting the government down because over there they keep 
holding the economy hostage, then holding the government hostage. But I 
am saying, yes, these projects will get started again. They will go for 
6 weeks, and then we will be back where we are right now, which is no 
place.
  When we have a chance to fix a problem, there is already an agreement 
it should be fixed, already the leadership has agreed how to fix it, 
and there is an allocation of the money set aside--we still cannot do 
it? Why? Because we want to come back in 6 weeks and have this fight 
again? How much time is wasted.
  Do you know what Tom Ridge said about this--a Republican, the first 
guy who ran Homeland Security, the first Secretary? He said:

       Never in the history of the country have we worried about 
     the budget around emergency appropriations for natural 
     disasters and, frankly, in my view, we should not be worried 
     about it now . . . we are all in this as a country. And when 
     Mother Nature devastates a community we may need emergency 
     appropriations and we ought to just deal with it and then 
     deal with the fiscal issues later on.

  That is a former Secretary of the department that was in charge of 
this.
  Governor Christie, I spoke with him yesterday on the phone. He said 
last week:

       You want to figure out budget cuts, that's fine . . . you 
     expect the citizens of my State to wait? They are not going 
     to wait, and I am going to fight to make sure they don't do 
     it. Our people are suffering now and they need support now. 
     We need the support now here in New Jersey. This is not a 
     Republican or Democratic issue.

  That is from Gov. Chris Christie, a very popular Republican, I might 
say.
  Then Gov. Bob McDowell, from Virginia, another Republican:

       My concern is that we help people in need. For the FEMA 
     money, that's going to flow, it's up to them how they get it. 
     I don't think it's the time to get into that (deficit) 
     debate.

  Why are we fighting over this? Why does the House Republican 
leadership think last year's number that was inadequate last year is 
good enough for this year when, as my staff just reminded me, we have 
had 10 disasters, each one over $1 billion this last year? This is 
Mother Nature. This wasn't caused by some conspiracy of the Democratic 
Party; this is just what happened. Why do they want people to have to 
worry whether help will be there when we can so easily fix this? On 
what principle are they standing? It cannot be fiscal responsibility; 
it is already provided for in the budget.
  If this is conservatism, I don't think America likes that. I don't 
think they will accept that. It is not their vision of conservatism, it 
is their vision of foolishness.
  I also think, as Patrick Leahy, Senator from Vermont, has said many 
times, many people are starting to think, why is it some people in 
Congress rush out to fund programs in Afghanistan and Iraq and never 
wanted to debate when we went to war how we were going to pay for that. 
We literally did it in 30 days. Nobody even questioned how we were 
going to pay for it--literally. I was here. Maybe a few people raised 
the issue this is going to be expensive, but nobody on the other

[[Page 14037]]

side did--to go to war, twice. Yet after a hurricane, a tornado, we now 
have to have a knock-down, drag-out, full-fledged debate on how we are 
going to pay for every single penny before we can give a green light to 
these Governors and mayors and county commissioners. I think it is 
outrageous, it is unnecessary, and it is so terribly unfair.
  I don't know what is going to happen because we sent a bill over to 
the House that has $6.9 billion. It, as I said, may not be enough, but 
it is much better than $2.65 from last year that was not sufficient 
then. We sent a bill over. It is a stand-alone bill. The House, if they 
do not think the number--if they think the number is too high, take it 
down a little bit or tell us they do not think this item is worth 
funding--say something. We could negotiate on that number. It is not 
written in the scripture, but it is the best estimate we had of what we 
actually need right now.
  No, they will not even look at the bill. They just send us $2.6 
billion on a continuing resolution. So, basically, Senate, take our 
old, tired, inadequate number and we are going to go home and then you 
can shut the Government down if you don't like it. What kind of way is 
that to treat disaster victims? It is no way at all.
  Senator Hagan just told me--she got out of a meeting today--some of 
her people are living literally in tents. I know, when I went down to 
Cameron Parish, some of my people were sleeping in the open air, on 
concrete. I know what these scenes are. They roll in my head. 
Unfortunately, I have lots of memories about people sleeping on the 
street, 500 people sleeping under an overpass waiting for the Federal 
Government or the State or local government to set up a trailer or 
rental unit.
  Again, if we did not have the provision for this already decided, if 
this was not the way we had operated in the past, I could understand 
it, but everything moves us: the agreement that has already been 
raised, the precedent of history, the accurate estimates of disaster. 
Yet the Republicans want to fight about it. I think it is a bad fight 
for them to have, let me just say. It is a shame. But we are going to 
do our best to get immediate and full funding, and if we cannot, we 
will be back in 6 weeks talking about it again, which is very 
unfortunate because we cannot rebuild Tuscaloosa, AL, and Joplin, MO, 
and parts of North Dakota, Minot, ND, and small towns in Alaska and 
Alabama 6 weeks at a time. We cannot do it. When we have the money, we 
have the provision, we have history and precedent on our side and the 
need is so great for the Republican leadership to throw a wrench just 
because they like to keep things stirred up, it is a shame.
  That is where we are. We are going to do our best. This is what 
Republican leaders say. This is what the pictures look like on the 
ground. When it is not on CNN every night, people don't think it is 
truly happening, but the fact is the fires are burning, there is rubble 
in town that looks like this, the water may have receded from this 
particular farm, but the damage is still there. The water I am sure has 
receded from this scene, but this family is still wandering around 
their lot looking for spoons and forks and things that might remind 
them of what they once had, and Republicans have decided, for whatever 
reason, to throw a wrench in this whole thing and make a big fight, 
when it is absolutely not necessary.
  We are going to keep working and see what we can do to bring relief 
to a lot of this misery.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). 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.


              Constitution Day And Justice Antonin Scalia

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, September 17 was an anniversary with double 
significance for our country. On September 17, 1787, delegates to the 
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia held their final meeting and 
signed the Constitution they had crafted. And on September 17, 1986, 
this body voted unanimously to confirm Justice Antonin Scalia's 
appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. Today, 25 years 
later, he is the senior member of the Court.
  These two events are profoundly related because Justice Scalia is 
literally helping us rediscover the real Constitution. His approach to 
doing the work of judges is helping us to rediscover the Constitution 
that America's Founders gave us--the Constitution that is powerful and 
solid; the Constitution that belongs to the people, protects our 
rights, limits government, and makes liberty possible.
  Antonin Scalia was born in Trenton, NJ, on March 11, 1936. After 
graduating first in his high school class, valedictorian from 
Georgetown University, and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, he 
embarked on a legal career that would include stints in private 
practice, government service, the legal academy, and, finally, the 
judiciary.
  President Reagan nominated then-Professor Scalia to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in July 1982. He appeared before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee on August 4, 1982--another date with 
constitutional significance. The hearing began just minutes after the 
Senate voted 69 to 31 to approve a balanced budget constitutional 
amendment, the only time this body has done so, at least so far. I was 
an original cosponsor of that amendment. I mention that because Justice 
Scalia's approach to the Constitution means that the people, and the 
people alone, have authority to change it through the amendment process 
outlined in the Constitution. The Senate's vote on that balanced budget 
amendment was part of that process.
  Professor Scalia told the Judiciary Committee that, if he were 
appointed to the bench, his days of being able to comment on the wisdom 
of laws enacted by Congress would be ``bygone days.'' The sense that 
judges are doing something fundamentally different than private 
citizens, fundamentally different than legislators, defines his 
judicial philosophy.
  The same theme dominated his confirmation hearing 4 years later, when 
President Reagan nominated Judge Scalia to be an Associate Justice of 
the Supreme Court. As that hearing opened, I quoted from the Chicago 
Tribune that the nominee was determined ``to read the law as it has 
been enacted by the people's representatives rather than to impose his 
own preference upon it.''
  When Justice Scalia took the oath of judicial office, President 
Reagan said that the judiciary must be independent and strong but 
confined within the boundaries of a written constitution.
  Public officials must swear to uphold and defend this written 
Constitution. It declares itself to be the supreme law of the land. 
More than 90 percent of Americans say it is very important to them. But 
what exactly is it and what are judges supposed to do with it? The 
answer to that question defines Justice Scalia's career and its lasting 
impact on all of us.
  The Constitution is a document, the oldest written charter of 
government in the history of the world. Professor Steven Calabresi, who 
teaches at Northwestern University Law School and once clerked for 
Justice Scalia, writes that when Americans think of liberty, they think 
of documents, especially of the Constitution.
  Three statements at the turn of the 19th century tell us what we need 
to know. First, the Supreme Court, in 1795, literally asked the same 
question: What is the Constitution? Here is their answer:

       The Constitution is fixed and certain; it contains the 
     permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the 
     land; it is paramount to the power of the legislature, and 
     can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it.

  Second, President George Washington echoed this theme a year later in 
his Farewell Address. He said:

       The basis of our political systems is the right of the 
     people to make and to alter their constitutions of 
     government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 
     till changed by an explicit and authentic act of

[[Page 14038]]

     the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.

  Third, the Supreme Court, in its 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, 
wrote that through the Constitution, the people established certain 
limits for the Federal Government.

       [A]nd that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, 
     the Constitution is written.

  There you have it. The Constitution is the means by which the people 
express their will and set limits on the government. The people alone 
have authority to change the Constitution and, until they do, it is 
fixed and certain. One obvious way to alter the Constitution is to 
change its words. But a more subtle, and even more effective, way to 
alter the Constitution is to change its meaning. Words themselves are 
just the form, but the meaning of those words is the substance. The 
real Constitution is its words and their meaning together. Whoever 
controls the meaning of the Constitution controls the Constitution 
itself. When we say that only the people may alter the Constitution, 
that simply must mean that only the people can change the words or 
their meaning. For the Constitution to be what it is supposed to be, 
both its words and their meaning must remain fixed and certain until 
the people choose to change them.
  Justice Scalia delivered the 1997 Wriston Lecture at the Manhattan 
Institute. Its title was simply ``On Interpreting the Constitution.'' 
He described his topic as ``what in the world we think we're doing when 
we interpret the Constitution of the United States.'' This is why it is 
so important to clarify what the Constitution is in the first place, so 
we know what judges are supposed to do with it.
  Justice Scalia believes the only proper way to interpret the 
Constitution is to find the meaning it already has, the meaning given 
to the Constitution by the people who alone had authority to establish 
it. Justice Scalia calls this approach originalism.
  In his Wriston Lecture, he said that the Constitution ``means what it 
meant when it was written.'' No one is more candid than Justice Scalia 
that this approach is not easy, but no one is more certain than Justice 
Scalia that this approach alone is legitimate. This approach alone 
preserves both the people's control of the Constitution and the 
Constitution's control of judges.
  In 2005, Justice Scalia delivered a speech at the Woodrow Wilson 
International Center for Scholars titled ``Constitutional 
Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way.'' He described originalism as 
beginning with the text and giving it the meaning that it bore when it 
was adopted by the people. With all due respect to Justice Scalia, he 
did not invent this approach, but he is helping us to return to those 
principles.
  In his service on the Court, in his speeches and writings, Justice 
Scalia is helping us rediscover what America's Founders told us to do 
from the start. I have to emphasize that Justice Scalia has for 25 
years implemented the very same approach that he described in his 
hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Vice President Biden was the ranking member at the time, and his very 
first question was about original meaning as a means of interpreting 
the Constitution. Justice Scalia explained later in the hearing that 
the starting point is ``the text of the document and what it meant to 
the society that adopted it. . . . I am clear on the fact that the 
original meaning is the starting point and the beginning of wisdom.''
  This body knew Justice Scalia would take this approach when we 
unanimously confirmed him, and he has stayed true to his word 
throughout his judicial career. In addition to instructing us about the 
principles we should once again follow, Justice Scalia has been 
sounding the alarm about failing to do so. He condemns as ``power 
judging'' the modern trend of judges substituting their own 
constitutional meaning for that of the people. This amends the 
Constitution as surely as changing its very words.
  Judges continually find creative ways to mask their power judging. 
They think of deeply impeded social or cultural values, evolving 
standards of decency, and what the Constitution should mean in our 
time.
  One of Justice Scalia's former colleagues even said that the 
Constitution is ``a sparkling vision of the supremacy of the human 
dignity of every individual.'' All of these evolving standards and 
sparkling visions are different ways of saying the same thing: that 
judges have taken control of the Constitution by controlling what it 
means.
  Justice Scalia will have none of it. In a 1996 dissent, he rejected 
this for what it really is; namely, the Court's Constitution-making 
process. He wrote:

       The court must be living in another world. Day by day, case 
     by case, it is designing a Constitution for a country I do 
     not recognize.

  One of the many things I like about Justice Scalia is that he applies 
his principles across the board. He has often pointed out that judges 
amend the Constitution by changing its meaning in ways that liberals 
like, but also in ways that conservatives like. All of it, he says, is 
wrong.
  Judges have no authority to design a new constitution no matter what 
it looks like. Sometimes I wonder how anyone could think otherwise. How 
could anyone believe that unelected judges may take the Constitution 
that opens with the words, ``We the People,'' and turn it into 
something else? Why would anyone tolerate judges who change the very 
Constitution that judges are supposed to follow?
  Justice Scalia believes no one should, and he challenges us to live 
up to the principles that define our system of government and that make 
our liberty possible. The real Constitution is solid and fixed. It was 
established and can be changed only by the people. That Constitution, 
the real Constitution, is strong enough to limit government and protect 
liberty.
  But that Constitution is being replaced by a very different one. 
Since about the 1930s, the real Constitution controlled by the people 
has been replaced in some measure by a fake constitution controlled by 
judges. The Constitution is weak, pliable, and shifting, according to 
them. It morphs and modifies. It shivers and it shakes.
  This Constitution is a figment of the judicial imagination, and it is 
written in disappearing ink. Thomas Jefferson warned that if judges 
control what the Constitution means, it would become ``a mere thing of 
wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into 
any form they please.''
  Doing so, Jefferson said, would make the Constitution nothing but a 
blank paper. This is not just an academic exercise. If you think the 
latest judicial mood swing is strong enough to limit government, think 
again. If you think that a lump of wax or a piece of blank paper is 
firm enough to protect your liberty, think again.
  A constitution that can be changed by nothing more than a judge's 
imagination is no constitution at all. This struggle over what the 
Constitution is affects not only what judges do with it but also how 
judges are chosen in the first place. If judges can change the 
Constitution by changing its meaning, then the judicial selection 
process will inevitably focus on the Constitution a judicial nominee is 
likely to create. It will inevitably focus on the form into which a 
judicial nominee can be expected to shape and twist the Constitution.
  Speaking at the State University of New York School of Law in 2002, 
Justice Scalia warned that if the Constitution's meaning is determined 
by judges rather than the people, the selection of those judges becomes 
``a very political hot potato. Every time you need to appoint a new 
Supreme Court Justice, you are going to have a mini-plebiscite on what 
the Constitution means.''
  In a 2007 speech at the Jesse Helms Center, Justice Scalia similarly 
compared the judicial confirmation process to a miniconstitutional 
convention. If judges may write a new constitution through their 
rulings, he said, the process will be about finding a nominee who will 
``write the Constitution that you want.''
  Justice Scalia is also affecting how we do things in the legislative 
branch. The more that judges are willing to do

[[Page 14039]]

our work for us, the less of it we are likely to do ourselves. On the 
other hand, if judges insist that we legislators say what we mean and 
mean what we say, then we are likely to draft laws differently. The law 
that we enact, after all, is the text of our statutes and not the 
speeches, reports, comments, thoughts, or other things that consume the 
legislative process.
  Knowing that judges who have to interpret and apply our statutes will 
look only at the law is an incentive for us to make sure if it is to be 
the law, it must be in the statute. That approach is more transparent, 
more accountable, and more reliable. We have Justice Scalia to thank 
for pushing us in that direction.
  Justice Scalia seems to be the Justice liberals love to hate. If this 
were a Harry Potter movie, liberals would put Justice Scalia on a 
wanted poster as ``Undesirable No. 1.'' Yet they just cannot seem to 
look away. The principles upon which he stands are so compelling and 
his way of winning them so powerful that whether you love him or hate 
him you simply must deal with him.
  Those who think judges may just make it up as they go along have a 
hard time figuring out Justice Scalia because he does not follow their 
game plan. Only a few months into his first term on the Supreme Court, 
the Washington Post reported that though Justice Scalia was expected to 
be a hard-changing conservative, he was voting with liberal Justice 
William Brennan almost two-thirds of the time.
  Several weeks later another Post headline read: ``Newest Reagan 
Appointee Joins Liberals,'' and the percentage of agreement with 
Justice Brennan seemed to be going up.
  Conservative George Will's column at the end of the 1986-1987 Supreme 
Court term bore the title, ``Good Grief, Scalia!''
  Not to worry, though, because a Post headline just 1 year later read: 
``Scalia May Be Successor as Conservatives' Chief Advocate.'' The real 
way to know Justice Scalia, you see, is to know his principles. They 
are principles drawn directly from America's founding from the nature 
of limited government under a written constitution. No one works harder 
to articulate and apply those principles day in and day out than 
Justice Scalia.
  Research in the last several years has demonstrated that he is the 
funniest Justice in oral argument and the most cited in law reviews and 
journals. His lectures around the country are consistently standing 
room only. His interview on the University of California's ``Legally 
Speaking'' television program has been viewed at least six times as 
often as any other guest.
  No doubt some of this popularity, this buzz, comes from his engaging 
personality, his wit, and his sense of humor. People enjoy being with a 
person like him. But it also comes from the substance, the sheer 
magnitude of the message he delivers in that unique way. People like a 
witty, engaging person. But they also respect powerful principles and a 
message that weighs more than a passing intellectual fad.
  I have so far spoken today about Justice Scalia, the jurist; I cannot 
close this tribute, however, without a few comments about Antonin 
Scalia, the man. The hearing on his Supreme Court nomination 25 years 
ago took place in the Judiciary Committee's regular hearing room, which 
is much smaller than where we hold such hearings today. His hearing 
lasted just 2 days, including testimony by witnesses.
  I can still remember that Justice Scalia's family occupied more than 
one row in the audience. As Justice Scalia introduced them, including 
all nine of his children, he said, ``I think we have a full 
committee.''
  Media cameras went crazy every time his youngest daughter Meg would 
lean her head on her mother's shoulder. Meg was just 6 years old then. 
But as I remember, she held up very well as we lawyers talked about all 
sorts of jurisprudential minutiae.
  That sight impressed on me Justice Scalia's deep love for family and 
the sacrifice that family makes when someone like him is so devoted to 
public service. He is also a man of deep faith and love for our country 
and the values on which it was founded.
  Five years ago, I marked Justice Scalia's 20th anniversary in a 
speech on the Senate floor. At that time I put into the Record letters 
from some of his former law clerks. I want to do the same today.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record after my 
remarks letters from some of the following former law clerks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1).
  Mr. HATCH. Edward Whelan, who clerked during the October 1991 term 
and later served as my counsel when I was ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, and is now president of the Ethics in Public 
Policy Center; Paul Clement, who clerked during the October 1993 term 
and later served as Solicitor General of the United States, and he is 
now a partner in the Bancroft law firm; Mark Phillip, who also clerked 
during the October 1993 term and later served as a U.S. district judge, 
and is now a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago; Brian Fitzpatrick, 
who clerked during the October 2001 term and is now an associate 
professor at Vanderbilt Law School; and Brian Killian, who clerked 
during the October 2007 term, and is now an associate at the Bingham 
McCutchen law firm in Washington.
  In closing, all Americans owe Justice Antonin Scalia a deep debt of 
gratitude. Every day he serves on the Supreme Court Justice Scalia 
gives a gift to all of us. He is reintroducing us to the principles and 
to the document that make our liberties possible. He invites us, in the 
words of the Kellogg's Corn Flakes commercial, to try it again for the 
first time.
  I return to the scene of his first judicial confirmation hearing in 
1982. The constitutional amendment process was underway that day, but 
it was rightly happening on the Senate floor rather than in the 
confirmation of a Federal judge. Keeping clear the principle that only 
the people have authority to change the Constitution will give us, as 
Justice Scalia often puts it, an enduring rather than an evolving 
constitution. We must step up and govern ourselves rather than look to 
judges to do it for us.
  I hope we see this opportunity for what it is, following Justice 
Scalia's lead, grasping again the principles of liberty and resolving 
never to let them go.
  Finally, I have been around here a long time. I have had a role with 
regard to every current member of the U.S. Supreme Court and a number 
of those who have gone on. I have to say that one of the most respected 
men in this country is Justice Scalia. I count him as a friend. I count 
him as a mentor. I count him as a teacher and professor. I count him as 
one of the all-time greatest Supreme Court Justices, a man who, without 
question, is as good a person as you can find.
  He is a terrific human being. His life has been a life of service to 
his fellow men and women. His wife is a terrific person, and as far as 
I know the kids are all great too.
  We have been fortunate that he has been willing to serve as he has. 
We are a greatly strengthened country because of Justice Scalia. There 
are a number of Justices in the history of this country we have to look 
up to. He is one of them. I think we should revere all of them, but he 
is one of the greatest. I suspect that he will be quoted, he will be 
written about, he will be talked about for a long time because of the 
genuine intellect of the man, the tremendous personality he has, the 
brilliant mind that we see on display every time he writes an opinion 
or gives a speech or lectures to us or gives a talk.
  This is one of the truly great people in our country today. I do not 
care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a 
conservative or somewhere else, this is a man we ought to all respect 
with every fiber of our beings, and his family as well.

[[Page 14040]]



                               Exhibit 1

                                                        Ethics and


                                         Public Policy Center,

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 2011.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: Thank you for commemorating the 25th 
     anniversary of the Senate's unanimous confirmation of Antonin 
     Scalia to the Supreme Court in 1986--fittingly, on 
     Constitution Day. As someone who has had the special 
     privilege of working both for you and for Justice Scalia, I 
     am particularly grateful to you for inviting me to take part 
     in this celebration.
       Over the past twenty-five years, no one has done more than 
     Justice Scalia to promote fidelity to our Constitution. As 
     the most prominent proponent of the interpretive methodology 
     of ``original meaning,'' Justice Scalia has forcefully argued 
     that genuine fidelity to the Constitution requires that its 
     provisions--including, of course, its amendments--be 
     interpreted in accordance with the meaning they bore at the 
     time they were adopted. His intellectual triumph over 
     advocates of the so-called ``living Constitution'' approach--
     under which judges are free to look to their own values or 
     sense of empathy in determining what the Constitution means--
     has been so devastating that his opponents have largely 
     abandoned the term ``living Constitution'' and some have even 
     tried to rebrand their positions as originalist.
       Justice Scalia's clear ideas are made all the more potent 
     by his distinctive writing, which combines a sparkling prose 
     and a logical rigor in a manner that is especially accessible 
     and appealing.
       Time has a way of vindicating Justice Scalia's judgments. 
     Virtually everyone, for example, now recognizes the soundness 
     of Justice Scalia's brilliant solo dissent in Morrison v. 
     Olson, the 1988 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that 
     the independent-counsel statute did not violate the 
     Constitution's separation of powers. Precisely because 
     Justice Scalia's jurisprudence reflects the genius of the 
     Framers and an abiding faith in, and fidelity to, American 
     constitutional principles, there is ample reason to expect 
     that his wisdom on other hotly contested issues of the era 
     will ultimately prevail.
       I am personally grateful to Justice Scalia for the 
     opportunity to serve as his law clerk for a year, for all 
     that I learned about the law and about legal reasoning from 
     working with him, and for his friendship and support during 
     my ensuing career. But, like all Americans, I am also deeply 
     indebted to him for his years of tremendous service on the 
     Court. May he enjoy many, many more!
           Sincerely,
     M. Edward Whelan III.
                                  ____



                                                     Bancroft,

                               Washington, DC, September 12, 2011.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

       Dear Senator Hatch: Thank you for taking the Senate Floor 
     to mark the 25th anniversary of the beginning of Justice 
     Antonin Scalia's distinguished tenure on the Supreme Court of 
     the United States. Thank you also for inviting me to send you 
     a letter offering a few thoughts of my own on this important 
     anniversary.
       I have had the privilege both of serving as a law clerk to 
     Justice Scalia and of arguing over 50 cases before him. I 
     count both experiences as high professional honors. What is 
     perhaps most remarkable about the opportunity to clerk for 
     the Justice is how much of the interaction with the Justice 
     is oral. To be sure, the opportunity to watch the Justice 
     work through drafts of an opinion is a remarkable experience. 
     But his writing style is inimitable, and the clerks are 
     relegated to the sidelines. The most valuable aspect of the 
     clerkship is the opportunity to discuss the Court's cases 
     with the Justice. Before every sitting, he had a session with 
     his law clerks that resembled nothing so much as an oral 
     argument. With 25 years of service, the Justice has now had 
     roughly 100 law clerks. As a reflection of the Justice's own 
     remarkable career, his law clerks have gone on to distinguish 
     themselves in academia, executive branch service, and the 
     judiciary. The key to their success, I believe, is that once 
     you have mixed it up with the Justice in an argument in 
     Chambers, very few subsequent professional experiences have 
     the capacity to intimidate.
       Perhaps the only experience that can hold a candle to those 
     in-Chambers debates is to argue a case before the Justice and 
     his colleagues. Justice Scalia clearly changed the dynamic of 
     Supreme Court oral arguments. One only needs to listen to the 
     audio recording of arguments before Justice Scalia joined the 
     bench to appreciate his impact. Advocates used to hold forth 
     at length with only occasional questions from the Justices. 
     The Justice arrived and began asking questions in rapid-fire 
     succession. His colleagues did not want the newest Justice to 
     steal the show and began asking more frequent questions, and 
     as subsequent Justices joined the Court, they too joined the 
     fray. I do not believe it is an accident that the Solicitor 
     General's office only formalized its practice of holding moot 
     courts after Justice Scalia joined the Court.
       Justice Scalia's impact on the Court has extended well 
     beyond oral argument. He has had a profound impact on the way 
     the Supreme Court, and all Judges, decide cases. The impact 
     is most obvious in the area of statutory construction. He has 
     fundamentally changed the way the Supreme Court approaches 
     the interpretation of congressional statutes. Coming from a 
     former law clerk, this could be dismissed as being less than 
     objective. But I have a much better source for this 
     observation: Justice John Paul Stevens. A few years ago, the 
     Supreme Court held argument in Arlington Central School 
     District v. Murphy, a case involving the question whether 
     expert fees were recoverable under a statute that allowed for 
     the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs. There was a pretty 
     good textual argument--which the Court ultimately adopted--
     that expert fees were neither attorneys' fees nor costs. 
     There was also a pretty good argument based on the conference 
     report that the conferees thought that expert fees would be 
     recoverable. At oral argument, Justice Stevens suggested that 
     the latter view should carry the day because ``the rule that 
     you cannot look at legislative history didn't really get any 
     emphasis until after 1987'' and the statute at issue was 
     enacted earlier. To be clear, 1987 was not the date of some 
     watershed Supreme Court opinion about legislative history; it 
     was Justice Scalia's first full year on the Court.
       It would be a mistake to think that Justice Scalia's 
     influence is limited to statutory as opposed to 
     constitutional interpretation, just as it would be a mistake 
     to pigeonhole his views as conservative or pro-Government. 
     Perhaps no opinion better illustrates both points than his 
     opinion for the Court in Crawford v. Washington. That 
     decision worked a fundamental reconsideration of the Court's 
     Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. With a classic 
     Scaliaesque focus on text, rather than purpose, the Court 
     rejected prior Supreme Court's decisions which considered the 
     underlying purpose of the Confrontation Clause--reliable 
     evidence--in favor of what the text actually guarantees: an 
     absolute right to confront witnesses. As he wrote for the 
     Court, the Sixth Amendment ``commands not that evidence be 
     reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular 
     manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.'' In 
     the years that have followed Crawford, few areas of the 
     Court's constitutional jurisprudence have been more dynamic 
     and no criminal defendant has had a better champion in a 
     Confrontation Clause case than Justice Scalia.
       Justice Scalia's impact has extended beyond the Court in 
     one more important way. An entire generation of law students 
     has now learned the law by reading Justice Scalia's opinions. 
     Even Justice Scalia's critics acknowledge the power of his 
     prose. I have had numerous law students--left, right and 
     center--confide that whenever there is a case with a Scalia 
     opinion, even a dissent or concurrence, they always read the 
     Scalia opinion first. And who can blame them? Who would want 
     to read about a three-pronged doctrinal test, when instead 
     you can read about 60,000 naked Hoosiers or even just nine 
     people selected at random from the Kansas City phone book. 
     And Justice Scalia's colorful prose can have serious 
     consequences--I am not sure the Court's Lemon test has ever 
     fully recovered from being compared to a B-movie ghoul.
       Finally, the most commendable thing about your decision to 
     mark this anniversary is that it does not require us to wait 
     for the end of Justice Scalia's service to celebrate his 
     tenure. I can assure you that from an advocate's perspective, 
     Justice Scalia appears to be a vibrant young man up on that 
     bench. At the same time we mark his twenty-five years of 
     service, we can look forward to his continuing service to his 
     country and his Court.
           Most sincerely,
     Paul D. Clement.
                                  ____

                                              Kirkland & Ellis LLP


                                  and Affiliated Partnerships,

                                  Chicago, IL, September 15, 2011.
     Sen. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.

       Dear Senator Hatch: Thank you very much for honoring 
     Justice Scalia on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his 
     confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. It is an 
     honor to contribute a letter to your effort.
       I suspect that many of Justice Scalia's colleagues in the 
     federal judiciary, his former colleagues from the legal 
     academy, and many of my colleagues in the Scalia law clerk 
     family will write about the Justice's vast intellect and his 
     profound contributions to the law. Their comments will 
     certainly be on the mark. Justice Scalia is one of the 
     smartest people one will ever encounter. And he has indelibly 
     influenced many areas of the law. He not only has written 
     landmark opinions concerning numerous areas of constitutional 
     and statutory law, he has, even more broadly, focused debate 
     about the proper methods of interpreting the Constitution and 
     federal statutes. He also has made key contributions to the 
     debate about the proper role of the federal judiciary within 
     our system of government. Not everyone agrees

[[Page 14041]]

     with his views, of course, but I suspect most everyone would 
     agree that he has been, and remains, one of the most 
     important voices in these key discussions.
       If I may, however, I am going to leave the accounting of 
     Justice Scalia's jurisprudential contributions to others far 
     more scholarly and intelligent than me. Instead, let me 
     please briefly address an aspect of Justice Scalia that 
     sometimes receives less public attention--namely, just how 
     nice and decent a person he is on a human level.
       It is commonly said within the Scalia law clerk family that 
     the Justice was the nicest boss any of us has ever had. He 
     is, first and foremost, a teacher at heart, and he routinely 
     would take time, despite his workload and responsibilities, 
     to help us become better thinkers and lawyers. He also 
     treated us with the utmost professionalism and respect, and 
     with concern for our personal lives as well as our 
     professional ones. That concern has remained in the years 
     since we clerked for him--as he has shared our joys, with the 
     birth of our children, and our sorrows, with the deaths of 
     loved ones.
       Justice Scalia's generosity with his time and attention is 
     not limited to his law clerks. I recall one time, in the 
     early summer when I was clerking, when Justice Scalia had 
     been working particularly hard for quite a stretch of time. 
     Notwithstanding those demands, he agreed to meet with a group 
     of school children who were touring the Court--as I recall, 
     somewhat unexpectedly within his schedule. Despite the 
     sixteen hour days he had been putting in for some weeks, he 
     engaged the kids at length, and fielded their many questions, 
     for well over an hour. There were no historians to record his 
     deeds, nor camera crews, but he did it just because he is a 
     generous and decent person. He entertained the kids (he is 
     quick to laugh, and quick to joke as well) but he also made 
     them think about important issues, and he took the time 
     necessary to do that, notwithstanding the long hours he had 
     been putting in for many weeks.
       Justice Scalia will be ranked among the most important 
     jurists in American history because of his vast professional 
     contributions. He also is a model of a dedicated public 
     servant, who works earnestly to discharge his duties to the 
     American people, that can be emulated by judges throughout 
     the nation. But he also is an exceedingly kind and decent 
     person. Being a nice person is not everything, but it is 
     quite important indeed, and in that regard, he is also a gem.
       In closing, let me please add one final thought. Any 
     recognition of Justice Scalia's twenty-five years of service 
     on the Supreme Court would be incomplete without a 
     recognition of his wife, Mrs. Maureen Scalia. Serving on the 
     Supreme Court is certainly a huge honor, but serving in that 
     role imposes substantial demands on any person and those 
     around them. I am quite confident, because I have heard 
     Justice Scalia say it many times, that he could not have 
     served on the Supreme Court without the support of his lovely 
     wife over his many years in the federal judiciary. She too is 
     owed recognition and thanks.
       Thank you again for your efforts to recognize the twenty-
     fifth anniversary of Justice Scalia's confirmation to the 
     Supreme Court. And thanks for your continuing service to the 
     Nation as well.
           Sincerely,
     Mark Filip.
                                  ____



                                        Vanderbilt Law School,

                                 Nashville, TN, September 9, 2011.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: This month marks the 25th anniversary 
     of the United States Senate's confirmation of Justice Antonin 
     Scalia to the Supreme Court of the United States. On 
     September 17, 1986, the Senate confirmed Justice Scalia by a 
     vote of 98-0, and, on September 25, he received his 
     commission.
       I hope that the Senate will find an appropriate moment 
     sometime in the coming weeks to honor Justice Scalia for this 
     important milestone in his service to the American people. I 
     realize that some members of the Senate are more fond of 
     Justice Scalia's jurisprudence than are others, but, no 
     matter where one stands on that question, I think it has to 
     be acknowledged that Justice Scalia has been one of the most 
     influential legal thinkers in modern American history--
     indeed, perhaps in all of American history.
       In an age where much judicial decision-making is ad hoc, 
     Justice Scalia distinguishes himself by following coherent 
     judicial philosophies known as ``textualism'' and 
     ``originalism.'' Although these philosophies may have 
     predated Justice Scalia in some form, I think it is fair to 
     say that he brought them to life, and, in doing so, forever 
     changed the way lawyers, judges, and public officials talk 
     and think about the law.
       This is not mere conjecture; it can be demonstrated 
     empirically. Several years ago, a student note was published 
     in the Harvard Law Review called Looking it Up: Dictionaries 
     and Statutory Interpretation, 107 HARV. L. REV. 1437 (1994). 
     The author examined how often the Supreme Court cited 
     dictionaries in its opinions. The author found that citations 
     dramatically increased after Justice Scalia brought his 
     textualist approach to statutory interpretation to the Court 
     in 1986. And it was not only Justice Scalia who was citing 
     the dictionary: all of the Justices were doing it. In short, 
     whether or not one agrees with Justice Scalia's philosophies, 
     nearly everyone acknowledges their power and nearly everyone 
     understands they must be grappled with.
       Consider as well how often Justice Scalia appears as the 
     subject of law review articles. I asked a research assistant 
     to tally how often his name appeared in the title of a law 
     review article compared to the 17 other Justices who have 
     been his colleagues. Although it turns out that this is more 
     difficult to do than it sounds--Justices with common last 
     names generate many false positives--after eliminating the 
     most common false positives, my research assistant reported 
     what I had long suspected: law professors write many more law 
     review articles about JusticeScalia than about any of his 
     colleagues (including, strikingly, Thurgood Marshall, the 
     first African American on the Court, and Sandra Day O'Connor, 
     the first woman). My research assistant found 220 articles 
     about Justice Scalia, well ahead of the 150 or so for his 
     closest competitors (and many of the articles found for his 
     closest competitors were false positives not easily 
     eliminated). In short, love him or hate him, nearly everyone 
     feels the need to reckon with him.
       Justice Scalia's influence is a result not only of the 
     strength of his ideas, but also of his rhetorical skills. Few 
     judges have ever turned phrases as colorfully as he does. I 
     witnessed firsthand the pleasure he takes from writing, and 
     it is an investment that has served him well. The reason he 
     was the thinker that brought textualism and originalism to 
     life may very well have been because he was the writer that 
     could not go unread.
       Justice Scalia's long public service and his extraordinary 
     influence on the law deserve recognition and respect. The 
     Supreme Court is a much richer place today than it would have 
     been had the Senate not elevated Justice Scalia there 25 
     years ago. It would be a nice gesture of bipartisanship to 
     take a few minutes this month to remember him.
           Sincerely,
     Brian Fitzpatrick,
       Associate Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University; Law 
     Clerk to Justice Scalia, 2001-2002.
                                  ____

                                               September 17, 2011.
     Senator Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch, as one of Justice Antonin Scalia's 
     former clerks, I'm delighted that you are commemorating the 
     25th anniversary of the Senate's September 17, 1986 vote to 
     confirm him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of 
     the United States.
       In hindsight, it is a wonderful coincidence that Justice 
     Scalia was confirmed on the 199th anniversary of the signing 
     of the Constitution. (The bicentennial would have been even 
     more fitting, but we're all grateful the Senate didn't wait a 
     year for it.) Over the last 25 years, his name has become a 
     synonym for ``originalism,'' the view that the Constitution 
     of the United States has only one, unchanging, original 
     meaning--the meaning that prevailed when it was adopted. He 
     has authored some of the most significant originalist 
     opinions the Supreme Court has ever issued, including 
     opinions on the accused's Sixth Amendment right to confront 
     the witnesses against him (Crawford v. Washington) and on our 
     Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (District of 
     Columbia v. Heller).
       Justice Scalia believes that judges must be originalists 
     because the United States is a nation ruled by law, not by 
     judges. The whole point of writing out a constitution 
     (indeed, of writing out any law), he observes, is to prevent 
     rules from being changed. As he has famously quipped, the 
     rule of law is a law of rules.
       For Justice Scalia, these words aren't just rhetoric. They 
     are principles he strives to follow in all his judicial 
     tasks, even the most insignificant ones. My favorite example 
     of this illustrates the depth of his commitment to rules.
       In the Supreme Court, a party can ask the justice assigned 
     to his or her circuit to postpone a filing deadline. 
     Applications for an extension of time are not exciting work, 
     particularly compared to everything else going on at the 
     Court. As a result, they aren't paid much attention. As a 
     further result, the vast majority of the applications are 
     granted--except, it turns out, in Justice Scalia's circuit. 
     Whereas the other justices tend to deny only a handful of 
     extension applications each year (less than 20%), Justice 
     Scalia grants only that many. Why does he take a solitary 
     stand over insignificant procedural motions?
       Barely three months on the job, Justice Scalia gave his 
     answer. He had received one of his first extension 
     applications. The attorney generically claimed that the case 
     presented ``important questions under the Constitution of the 
     United States which were determined adversely to the 
     petitioner by the

[[Page 14042]]

     court below'' and that the attorney, therefore, needed 
     ``additional time to research and prepare the [petition for 
     a] Writ of Certiorari.'' This was the legal equivalent of a 
     form letter, mailed in with the expectation that it was a 
     technical formality, as if five minutes of copying a prior 
     application plus the price of postage were all that someone 
     needed to get an extra 60 days to file a petition.
       To the attorney's surprise, Justice Scalia denied the 
     request and wrote a short explanation for his decision, 
     making an example of the seemingly routine case (Kleem v. 
     INS). The Supreme Court's rules say that a party must 
     demonstrate ``good cause'' for an extension, and they 
     admonish that extension requests are ``not favored.'' If 
     needing more time to prepare the best possible petition was 
     ``good cause,'' everyone could honestly claim good cause. 
     Then, the Court's pronouncement that extension requests are 
     ``not favored'' would serve only to deter inexperienced 
     attorneys who, not being part of the savvy club, didn't know 
     that the rules don't really mean what they say.
       Of course, the easy decision always is to grant an 
     application. But what is easy isn't always right, and what is 
     right isn't always easy. We expect judges to do what is 
     right, no matter how hard it is. Justice Scalia fulfills our 
     expectations in all he does.
       Twenty five years ago, what was right was also easy: the 
     Senate should be proud that it unanimously consented to give 
     Justice Scalia a lifetime appointment to the highest court in 
     the land. His commitment to the rule of law is unflagging, as 
     strong today as it was the day he was confirmed.
           Respectfully yours,
                                                 Bryan M. Killian,
                          Law Clerk to Justice Scalia (2007-2008).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Oregon is 
recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, my hope is that we are moving into the 
homestretch, in terms of being able to pass the trade adjustment 
assistance legislation.
  I strongly support efforts to promote more exports. The President has 
set a laudable goal of increasing exports. We know that in the export 
sector, there is an opportunity to make things here, to grow things 
here, to add value to them here, and then ship them around the world. 
To promote these export markets and generate the economic growth our 
country wants, we have to make sure our workers have the latest, most 
updated skills to make sure they can get those jobs and exports and get 
American products around the world.
  As I indicated yesterday, there is no doubt that the American brand 
is a hit around the world. Ninety percent of the consumers are outside 
the United States, and they want our products. My hope is, as I have 
indicated, that we are moving toward being able to pass this 
legislation, the trade adjustment assistance, to increase our exports. 
Because some pretty astonishing comments have been made with respect to 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, I wish to take a few minutes 
this afternoon and make sure we can get some facts out to combat some 
of the rhetoric.
  For example, one comment I have heard repeatedly is that the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Program is a sop to organized labor. The argument 
is that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is just a giveaway to 
labor unions and that they are the people who want the program; that it 
is something that is part of the labor priority list. I can tell the 
occupant of the chair--and I am sure she hears the same thing I do at 
home--that folks who are members of labor unions don't come up to us 
and say what they want in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. They 
say: Senator, I want to have a good-paying job. I want a job where I 
can support my family and where I have a living wage. That is what I am 
concerned about right now.
  What I am concerned about is China, for example, with their low-
interest loans. In some areas, such as solar manufacturing, which I 
have written the Obama administration about, they are undercutting our 
solar manufacturers because they are basically giving out free money 
now. That is what workers come up to Senators and say: Senator, I want 
a good job, one I can make sure that when I go to bed at night, I will 
know when I wake in the morning, I will be able to support my family. 
Labor union folks don't walk up and say: This is what I want from the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.
  The fact is, it has been documented by Mathematic Policy Research 
that less than half the participants in the TAA were members of a 
union. Let me repeat that. Less than half of those who participated in 
trade adjustment assistance were members of a union. In fact, this is a 
program that is available to all American workers who qualify. When we 
are talking about applying, in effect, a trade adjustment assistance 
petition can be filed by any of the following groups: a group of three 
or more workers, an employer, a labor union, a State workforce 
official, a one-stop operator or partner or any other person who is 
designated a duly authorized representative.
  This is, to me, the bottom line. In 2009, more than 9 out of 10 
petitions for trade adjustment assistance relief were filed by nonunion 
firms or groups. I will repeat that because we have heard so frequently 
this is somehow a giveaway to labor or a sop to the labor unions. In 
2009, more than 9 out of 10 TAA petitions were filed by nonunion firms 
or groups. More than two-thirds of the eligible population for the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program were not members of a union.
  I hope that, at this point in the debate, we can make it clear, we 
can make it understandable that TAA is not a program only available to 
labor unions. That is not true. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program 
is not only available to labor unions. TAA is for all Americans. As 
this debate continues and, as I indicated, hopefully moves into the 
homestretch, I hope Senators remember that in 2009 more than 9 out of 
10 TAA petitions were filed by nonunion firms or groups.
  The second area I wish to touch on, in terms of trying to rebut some 
of these criticisms about the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, is 
the argument that there is no need to extend eligibility to those in 
the service sector. In 2009, Congress expanded the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Program so service workers who are displaced by trade would 
be eligible for assistance. There has been criticism of this expansion, 
and I wish to make sure, again, that Senators and those listening to 
this debate actually get some of the key facts.
  It is important to remember that 82 percent of employment between 
2006 and 2010 was in the service sector. To argue that workers in 
computer programming, finance, accounting, and insurance do not face 
foreign competition is simply to put our heads in the sand.
  A forthcoming paper by Bradford Jensen finds that Americans employed 
in businesses and professional services face more international 
competition than workers in the manufacturing sector. Again, when 
Senators hear this argument that there is no case for extending trade 
adjustment assistance eligibility to service workers, I hope they will 
think through the implications of the international competition our 
workers face in this sector because those in computer programming, in 
finance, in accounting, and in insurance are important workers in the 
American economy. They have played a big role particularly in the 
export sector. I think to arbitrarily say they should not be eligible 
for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, given what many of them 
are facing in terms of international competition, isn't right.
  The third argument I would like to take on directly is the argument 
that, in some way, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is almost a 
duplicative program. Again, the facts show this argument doesn't stand. 
A Mathematic Policy Research report from last year makes clear that 
workers who lose their job due to increased imports--surging imports is 
the way we ought to appropriately characterize it--those folks who are, 
therefore, eligible for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program because 
of surging imports tend to be older, often have less education, and 
have higher prelayoff earnings compared to other unemployed Americans.
  That is why the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is different than 
the unemployment insurance program. It is tailored to meet the distinct 
needs of a critical portion of the labor force. The workers are older, 
and often they

[[Page 14043]]

have less education. The transition, as the occupant of the chair 
knows, can be gut-wrenching because a lot of these individuals, before 
their layoffs, were making good wages. Now they are wondering how they 
are going to be able to get the skills and how they are going to be 
able to pick up the knowledge to tap the latest opportunities that are 
available in American business that is looking to export.
  This is a program that doesn't duplicate any other. It is a program 
that is designed to serve a unique population. I am sure we are going 
to continue through the rest of the discussion about trade adjustment 
assistance and see a lot of back and forth between Senators with 
respect to the merits of the program.
  I continue to believe we ought to start, as we analyze it, by 
remembering this has always been a bipartisan program, No. 1; No. 2, 
TAA petitions have been approved by Labor Departments in both 
Democratic and Republican administrations. This has roots in the 
bipartisan effort to support expanded trade. One study after another 
shows that expanded trade--particularly tapping export markets--can 
generate hundreds of thousands of jobs. But there is no question that, 
as we try to make sure we don't lose a single job in America--even 
short term--some workers can end up needing some help during a 
transition from one job to another, and if they have been harmed by 
surging imports, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is there for 
them. That is why we ought to reauthorize it.
  I think we also ought to recognize it is knitted together with the 
effort to pass the free-trade agreements because the free-trade 
agreements are about more exports. To have all the workers we need for 
the potential export markets, we have to make sure workers who have 
been laid off have a chance to upgrade their skills.
  We will come back to this topic, I am certain, but I hope, in the 
last few minutes, I have been able to at least offer some concrete, 
documented facts that make clear that the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program is not a sop to organized labor, since, in 2009, the vast 
majority of those granted relief had nothing to do with a labor union; 
second, that we have made the case for why service workers, facing 
aggressive international competition, ought to be eligible for the TAA; 
third, I hope we have been able to lay out how this program doesn't 
duplicate any others because this is a unique group who 
disproportionately uses the program, who is older, often with less 
education, and the transition can be particularly gut-wrenching because 
very often they have higher prelayoff earnings compared to other 
unemployed Americans.
  I think we understand the biggest challenge for this Senate is 
creating more good-paying jobs. In my State, about one out of six jobs 
depends on international trade. The trade jobs tend to pay better than 
do the nontrade jobs. That is why I considered it such an honor when 
Chairman Baucus asked me to chair the Finance Committee's Subcommittee 
on International Trade. I saw this as an opportunity to grow the Oregon 
economy and to grow good-paying family wage jobs. Oregon has a very 
good record in terms of manufacturing. We face a whole host of dramatic 
challenges right now. For example, I am particularly concerned about 
where our country is headed in terms of manufacturing in the renewable 
energy sector. The Chinese are engaged in very aggressive and 
questionable practices with respect to the Chinese Development Bank. In 
effect, they are giving free money to companies that can manufacture 
and undercut the American market. I have asked the Obama administration 
to investigate this. If they do not, I am certainly going to be looking 
legislatively at pursuing trade remedies.
  Much of what we are faced with in terms of the renewable energy 
sector, particularly generating jobs in manufacturing in that sector, 
deals with making sure we have a rules-based trading system. We enjoy 
the fact that China is a trading partner. Our State gets a significant 
amount of jobs from exporting goods to China. But the Chinese, like 
everybody else, have to comply with the rules, and there is a 
substantial amount of evidence that the rules aren't being complied 
with as they relate to manufacturing in the solar sector.
  That is why I am using my position as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness to get on top 
of that. We have already lost some solar manufacturers and we shouldn't 
sit idly by and lose more. That is the kind of challenge we ought to be 
working on together on a bipartisan basis; not coming to the floor of 
the Senate and blocking a piece of legislation that gives our workers 
an opportunity to get ahead--to get ahead in the private sector, to get 
ahead in the export market, and to be in a position to get the good-
paying jobs that are going to be available in the years ahead if we 
pass legislation to remove trade barriers.
  The reality is that in virtually all of these areas, our tariffs are 
low, which means that around the world countries get to send their 
products to us and get almost totally free access to our market. Yet, 
around the world, when we try to ship our products to them, we face 
very substantial tariffs. That is what we are trying to change here on 
the floor of the Senate--to level the playing field. Because if we 
level the playing field, our workers get more out of it than do the 
workers of other countries. And that, to me, ought to be particularly 
appealing to Senators now when our folks are hurting and when there is 
so much pain in communities across this country.
  When I am home, I am consistently seeing workers who are walking an 
economic tightrope--balancing their food bills against their fuel bills 
and their fuel bills against their medical costs. They go to bed at 
night wondering if they are going to have a good-paying job in the 
morning, given what is being reported every day in the newspapers in 
terms of layoffs and the kinds of challenges our companies are facing 
in these tough global markets. That is why legislation to promote 
exports makes sense. It is an opportunity to provide a new measure of 
economic security to hard-working American families--to tap those 
export markets. We have to make sure our workers, all of our workers, 
can get the skills and those kinds of opportunities so they can qualify 
for those export markets.
  This legislation--passing trade adjustment assistance--is a key 
component of our ability to generate more jobs in the private sector 
through exports. I certainly hope we are in the homestretch of being 
able to pass this legislation and then to move on to the agreements, 
move on to the opportunity to generate more exports, because that means 
more work--good-paying work--for our people.
  Madam President, with that, I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I also believe profoundly that increasing 
our exports, improving our trading opportunities for businesses in this 
country can do a lot to get Americans back to work. It employs a lot of 
people across this country today, and it is important we get these 
trade agreements done. I couldn't agree more with what my colleague 
from Oregon had to say about that in terms of its impact on the 
economy.
  What is unfortunate, in my view, is the fact we have had to wait so 
long to get where we are. We have had trade agreements now that have 
been teed up, literally signed back in December of 2006 for Colombia, 
Panama, and South Korea, in 2007, and it strikes me that at the least 
we have lost a tremendous amount of opportunity and a tremendous amount 
of market share as a result of the delay.
  I would have hoped yesterday we would have passed trade promotion 
authority, because that allows us at least to be at the table to 
negotiate trade agreements in the future. We have been basically locked 
out of that since trade promotion authority lapsed back in 2007. This 
is a global economy, and the world is passing us by. Every single day 
we are not engaged, that we are not out there negotiating trade 
agreements with countries around the world

[[Page 14044]]

somebody else is, and every single day we are losing opportunities for 
American business to export and to grow our economy and to create jobs 
here at home.
  What I want to speak to today is an amendment I filed earlier this 
afternoon that deals with what I believe is a very important topic, and 
that is the high cost of delay when it comes to the pending free-trade 
agreements. Much attention has been paid in this debate to the pros and 
cons of trade adjustment assistance, and that is certainly a debate we 
ought to have. But we should not overlook the fact there has been a 
real cost to America's economy and American business associated with 
the President's strategy to link passage of the free-trade agreements 
to the renewal of an expanded Trade Adjustment Assistance Program--very 
unfortunate, especially considering what even the White House 
acknowledges, which is that passing the trade agreements is one of the 
best things we can 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 this figure could be as high as 380,000 U.S. jobs. 
You would think passage of these trade agreements, which were signed in 
2006 and 2007, would have been a priority, and 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 sending us the trade agreements so we can consider them.
  I hope what we are doing today puts in place a process whereby that 
will happen. But as of right now, we have yet to see those trade 
agreements, notwithstanding the President's assertions he is committed 
to growing trade and to getting these trade agreements passed. That 
can't happen until they are submitted to the Congress for ratification. 
I am hopeful the trade bill before us now will allow us to get to a 
full and fair debate on the trade adjustment assistance and, in so 
doing, we will finally get to where we have removed what I hope is the 
last obstacle blocking passage of the three free-trade agreements.
  My amendment is very simple. Under the current trade promotion 
authority procedures, the International Trade Commission must prepare a 
report that is submitted to Congress no later than 90 days after a 
trade agreement is signed. However, there is currently no requirement 
the ITC conduct a study to assess the negative impact on U.S. 
businesses when we delay implementation of an agreement, as we have 
with Korea, Colombia, and Panama. My amendment would simply require 
that the International Trade Commission 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. exports, how the delay has 
impacted U.S. trade objectives, as set forth under TPA, 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. And, finally, 
the ITC would be required to update this study in every year subsequent 
that the trade agreement is not considered by Congress or if it is not 
entered into force.
  My amendment follows a basic principle: If the President believes a 
trade agreement is in America's national and economic interest, he 
needs to submit it to Congress. The three pending trade agreements, 
which hopefully will be considered soon, are a good case in point. 
Consider that U.S. companies have paid more than $5 billion in tariffs 
to Colombia and Panama since the trade agreements with these nations 
were signed more than 4 years ago. That is $5 billion American 
companies have had to put out in the form of tariffs to these countries 
because these trade agreements--which were signed more than 4 years 
ago--haven't entered into force.
  More importantly, U.S. businesses have lost countless business 
opportunities in Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Without trade agreements 
to ensure similar treatment for our exporters, American businesses will 
continue to face high tariff and nontariff barriers abroad. Consider 
just one 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 imports into the United States. Passage of the Korea 
Free Trade Agreement will level this playing field. Yet the 
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. 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--
soybeans, corn, and wheat. 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 decline of 50 percentage points.
  We are living in a global economy. America cannot afford to stand 
still and to stay on the sidelines when it comes to trade. In 1960, 
exports accounted for only 3.6 percent of our entire 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 
for us to get back in the game by passing the three pending trade 
agreements and then to work aggressively to make sure our 
administration is in a position, with trade promotion authority, to 
negotiate new agreements that will open new market opportunities for 
American business. America's manufacturers, America's farmers, and 
America's service providers cannot afford to wait any longer.
  What this amendment does, very simply, is require us to weigh and to 
evaluate and analyze the impact of delay when it comes to implementing 
these free-trade agreements. We have seen in these examples of Colombia 
and Panama and South Korea with great clarity the economic impact--the 
loss of market share--that has occurred to many of our exporters as a 
result of this delay. It is important we know, that American business 
know, that the American people know what we are losing when we delay 
these agreements, as has happened here with these three particular 
agreements.
  It is a straightforward amendment, and I offer it to raise what I 
think is an important issue, which is that when we get signed 
agreements, we need to take action on those. They need to be submitted, 
to be ratified and enacted by the Congress, or we are going to continue 
to lose out on critically important opportunities for American 
exporters.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before he leaves, I simply want to say to 
the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, who is the ranking 
Republican on our subcommittee, that I very much enjoy working with 
him. I have listened carefully to his remarks, and it seems to me what 
we ought to be addressing in the Senate is our country's opportunities. 
This is about opportunities. Trade agreements present an opportunity 
for more exports, something--as the Senator from South Dakota touched 
on--that is particularly promising for areas such as agriculture. I 
know in South Dakota and Oregon these are huge opportunities. America 
is about exports, and free-trade agreements are about opportunities to 
export.
  The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is about opportunities for 
our workers to update their skills. In a sense, American business is 
only as competitive as its workers. That is why, in my view, we have 
always had this tradition--a bipartisan tradition which I have tried to 
highlight this

[[Page 14045]]

afternoon--of making sure we look at every possible opportunity to 
advance trade.
  Before the Senator came to the floor, I think I talked about--and he 
and I have talked about this--the fact that our tariffs have 
historically been low compared to the rest of the world; they have big 
tariffs. We have trade agreements that level the playing field, and our 
side gets more out of it than everybody else. It has been part of the 
bipartisan approach to trade. It seems to me we have the chance--and I 
hope we are heading into the home stretch, because I think the Senator 
from South Dakota has correctly noted it is certainly time to get this 
done--to get this to the President's desk; that we can resolve this by 
saying this is an opportunity to see Congress--the Senate--at its best.
  Because we can be in the opportunities business, trade agreements 
generating opportunities for exports that are clear winners for the 
American economy when we have unemployment, economic insecurity, 
surging imports from Japan.
  We need opportunities for our businesses to export, but we also need 
opportunities for our workers, and I hope that as we move into the home 
stretch of this discussion, we can see that trade adjustment assistance 
is an opportunity for our workers to update their skills. As they 
update their skills, that is going to make American businesses--
particularly our exporters--more competitive because they will have 
workers who can take the jobs.
  I wish to express my appreciation to the Senator from South Dakota. 
He and I have worked very closely on a whole host of issues, in fact 
some that I think are going to be a big part of the future debate. The 
Senator from South Dakota and I want to make sure those who manufacture 
digital goods in our country and offer digital services get treated 
fairly in international markets. This is also a promising opportunity: 
digital goods--software, for example--digital services such as cloud 
computing. Under the legislation the Senator from South Dakota and I 
have offered, we can break down some of the barriers to those kinds of 
products. I am looking forward to working with him on that and a number 
of other issues.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I just want to say I thank the Senator 
from Oregon. He and I have worked together on a number of issues, not 
the least of which is some of these trade issues, and I look forward to 
continuing that collaboration. I do believe the Senator from Oregon is 
someone who really understands the value of opening export 
opportunities for American businesses and has worked and advocated on 
their behalf in his time in the Senate.
  I think the Senator would also understand the frustration some of us 
have expressed, and perhaps is felt even by him and others, that these 
things have languished for so long. I understand the issue of trade 
adjustment assistance is very important to him and many other Members 
on his side of the aisle, as well as some on our side, but it strikes 
me at least that we could have been at this a lot sooner and not have 
relinquished and given up so many of the lost market opportunities I 
mentioned in my remarks. It certainly impacts an agricultural State 
such as mine and many other Members who represent agricultural areas of 
this country.
  If you look at the loss of market share that has occurred in just 
these last few years since we have sort of been locked out and other 
countries have moved in to fill that vacuum, it is very frustrating to 
many of us to have witnessed that. That is why this amendment sort of 
gets at the idea that we need to know what the economic impacts are 
when these trade agreements don't get dealt with. One way or the other, 
these agreements need to get dealt with, and here we are, almost 5 
years later with regard to Colombia and over 4 years later with regard 
to Panama and South Korea. That is way too long for us to be out of the 
game, so to speak, and it has cost us mightly. So I hope we can get 
these done.
  He is right, we have a process in place that I hope will enable us to 
finally accomplish this. But we ought to make sure that doesn't happen 
again in the future.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, we are prepared to vote.


                           Amendment No. 642

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Under the previous order, the 
question occurs on amendment No. 642 offered by the Senator from Utah, 
Mr. Hatch, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote.
  The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment No. 642. 
It is fairly simple. It tightens the nexus between TAA benefits and 
actual jobs lost because of trade by requiring a stricter standard to 
receive TAA benefits. The expanded TAA benefit offered by my friends 
across the aisle continues the ``contributed importantly'' standard 
that says if trade is a cause which is important, but not necessarily 
more important than any other cause of the job loss, TAA benefits can 
be provided. That is not a tight nexus.
  As a result, many workers are eligible for TAA benefits even if their 
job loss was not caused by trade. My amendment requires that trade 
would have to be a ``substantial cause'' of job loss for TAA benefits 
to be available. This standard was established by President Reagan when 
he constrained spending on TAA.
  By returning to the stricter TAA standard, this amendment puts 
reasonable constraints on the program to stop it from expanding into 
another out-of-control spending program.
  I ask my colleagues to help the American taxpayers and constrain TAA 
spending by supporting this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hatch 
amendment. In a time of surging Chinese imports, high unemployment, and 
widespread economic pain, the Hatch amendment would make it harder for 
workers, companies, and farmers to obtain trade adjustment assistance 
in order to be able to compete in the global economy. Specifically, the 
Hatch amendment would take Congress back to a standard for qualifying 
for TAA benefits that was a demonstrated failure in the early 1980s.
  Chairman Baucus and Chairman Camp have put together a reasonable TAA 
agreement. It is bipartisan. That bipartisan agreement ought to be 
preserved, which is why the amendment by the Senator from Utah should 
be rejected.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 57, as follows:

[[Page 14046]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

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

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     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
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Barrasso
     Enzi
     Rockefeller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are 
57. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 645

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 645, offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, 
with 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It eliminates 
one small piece of the TAA Program called TAA for Firms.
  Now, why would I do this? Strictly for bipartisan reasons, to 
demonstrate my agreement with President Obama, who also supports the 
repeal of this particular piece of the TAA. In his budget submission of 
this year, it specifically recommended the elimination of this program. 
It is only $16 million a year, but it is inefficient. As the 
President's budget pointed out, it does not achieve its objectives as 
well as other programs do.
  Measured against other programs, the firms that are supposedly helped 
actually fail at a bigger rate than other firms that are not in the 
program. As a result, I decided I would support one of the elements of 
the President's budget: to eliminate this TAA for Firms Program.
  Friends, if we are serious about any kind of reform for TAA, surely 
we can agree upon a clearly bipartisan proposal of the President of the 
United States, which is supported by Republicans in the Senate. I ask 
for your support for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kyl 
amendment. It is an antismall business amendment. There is a lot of 
talk around here about government getting out of the way of job 
creators, but let's be clear. Firms using TAA are those job creators. 
They are small businesses such as RBB Systems in Wooster, OH, CB 
Manufacturing in West Carrollton, and auto and truck suppliers in 
Bolivar.
  In my State alone, 96 percent of companies assisted with TAA for 
Firms--this program that Senator Kyl wants to eliminate--96 percent of 
those companies that were in business in 2006 are still in business.
  When a job creator goes out of business because of an unfair trade 
deal, we know what happens. Workers lose their jobs, communities lose 
revenues, funds for schools are cut, funds for public services.
  TAA is a lifeline not just for workers, but this program for firms, 
TAA for Firms, is a lifeline for small businesses and community schools 
and all of that which matters to our tax base and our communities.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Kyl amendment.
  Mr. KYL. 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 proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Barrasso
     Enzi
     Rockefeller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
54. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader--I need about 2 
minutes for the chairman and I to have a colloquy.
  Mr. REID. OK. I spoke to the Republican leader a few minutes ago, and 
we think we are on a path to complete this most important piece of 
legislation in the morning. This is an agreement we had--that we would 
try to finish this--and we will expeditiously work toward other matters 
relating to trade as soon as we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wanted to inform the majority leader, I 
was going to have a brief colloquy with the chairman who, I think, will 
be back in a few minutes.
  In the meantime, 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Moldova

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the original Jackson-Vanik amendment was 
offered to the Trade Act of 1974, and it was led in this body by the 
great Democratic Senator of Washington, Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson. That 
amendment prohibited the United States from entering into Permanent 
Normal Trade Relations with any country that placed restrictions on the 
freedom of emigration and other human rights of its people. This law 
was later expanded to cover countries with non-market economies. The 
major impact of the

[[Page 14047]]

Jackson-Vanik restriction was that it prevented the United States from 
granting ``most-favored nation'' trading status to the Soviet Union, 
which at the time was placing awful restrictions on the ability of its 
Jewish citizens to emigrate and flee the persecution they experienced 
behind the Iron Curtain.
  Jackson-Vanik applied to Moldova when it was part of the Soviet 
Union, and it remained in place following Moldova's independence 20 
years ago. This made sense at the time, because the country continued 
to be ruled by communist governments, which ensured an unfortunate 
continuity with Moldova's Soviet past at a time when the country's 
neighbors were reaping the benefits of liberation.
  But Mr. President, the situation in Moldova is now fundamentally 
changed. In August 2009, a coalition of democratic and reformist 
parties managed to win power in what international organizations deemed 
a free and fair election. For the first time in two decades, Moldova 
had a noncommunist government, and with it, the potential for real 
reform. The goal of this coalition is reflected in the name that they 
have given themselves: the Alliance for European Integration. Their 
platform is to deepen Moldova's democratic institutions, pursue free 
market reforms, fight corruption, and work on integrating Moldova into 
Euro-Atlantic institutions. This is a new generation of leaders, and 
they represent the great hopes of their citizens.
  I visited Moldova in June. I met at length with their Prime Minister 
and other senior leaders, and I can tell you firsthand this government 
is committed to leading Moldova toward a future of political and 
economic freedom. Yes, major challenges remain to the realization of 
this vision, but for the first time in Moldova's history as an 
independent nation, its current government is on the right track. They 
are pursuing the right goals and policies. Their intentions are good 
and admirable.
  In the face of continued opposition from elements in Moldova that 
want to drag the country back to its troubled past, the current 
government is trying to move the country forward. They are taking on 
the hard challenges. When I asked how we in the United States could 
best support their efforts, all they asked of me--all they asked of us 
in Congress--is one thing: It is not additional foreign assistance. It 
is not more of our taxpayers' dollars, although that assistance is 
important too. It is the repeal of Jackson-Vanik, so Moldovans can 
develop their own country, grow their own economy, and deepen their own 
free market reforms through normal trading relations with the United 
States. Nothing we could do would provide greater moral and material 
support for Moldova's reformers.
  I wish to thank Senator Baucus for his continued support of the 
people and the country of Moldova. I understand that any amendment to 
the legislation that is pending would be harmful to the progress of the 
trade agreements, and I appreciate that fact and hope the chairman can 
perhaps--hopefully before the end of the year--take up the repeal of 
Jackson-Vanik as it applies to the country of Moldova, a country that 
is very much in need of it.
  I want to read a statement made by Vice President Biden during his 
visit to Moldova this year.
  He said:

       We will work with the Congress and with your government to 
     lift the Jackson-Vanik amendment and establish permanent 
     trade relations. We believe that will be good for Moldova and 
     for the United States.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from the National Council on Soviet Jewry concerning Moldova.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                               National Conference


                                              on Soviet Jewry,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 2010.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of NCSJ, I want to state our 
     support for the graduation of the Republicof Moldova from the 
     Jackson-Vanik Amendment. Moldova has satisfied the 
     requirements of the two areas central to the Amendment's 
     intent: Jews are free to emigrate, in accordance with the 
     Helsinki Final Act and established principles of 
     international law; those who choose to remain in Moldova can 
     practice Judaism and participate in Jewish culture and 
     language without reservation.
       Jewish community life has flourished since the dissolution 
     of the Soviet Union. Synagogues, community centers and 
     schools serve the community without government interference.
       While incidents of popular anti-Semitism and intolerance 
     still take place in Moldova, NCSJ has been working with the 
     Moldovan government through a variety of avenues, including 
     the OSCE, to address these issues. In January, when Prime 
     Minister Filat met with the American Jewish community and 
     testified before the U.S. Helsinki Commission, he committed 
     to reforming Moldova's law on preventing and combating 
     discrimination.
       Moldova has been admitted to the WTO but still falls under 
     the strictures of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. We hope that 
     you will find an appropriate legislative vehicle to graduate 
     Moldova from Jackson-Vanik.
       If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me 
     at your convenience.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mark B. Levin,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. McCAIN. I again thank the chairman for his consideration and for 
his continued support for the people of Moldova.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much thank my friend for bringing 
this up. Moldova is a country which joined the World Trade Organization 
in 2001, and for various reasons--basically, it is Jackson-Vanik or the 
relic of Jackson-Vanik--Moldova has not been granted PNTR. But Moldova 
has made huge, successful strides in its government, in its political 
and economic reforms. I am very impressed with Moldova. It is a friend 
to the United States.
  Although we cannot deal with that issue on this bill, I want to make 
it very clear to my friend from Arizona that we will take up 
legislation this year to ensure that Moldova is granted PNTR status and 
becomes a full member in the world community. I make that pledge to my 
friend from Arizona to get that done this year.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman. I know he has an incredibly heavy 
schedule, with the legislation before us today and other matters before 
the committee, but I also know he knows--and I want to assure him--when 
the people of Moldova hear of his commitment, this will be a happy day 
in Moldova. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. BAUCUS. And I thank the Senator for standing for the people of 
Moldova.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate is in consideration of trade 
policy this week with an extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program. TAA is the main way we help American workers cope with the 
negative effects of our globalized economy. It is a crucial program in 
both good times and bad, and it must be renewed.
  TAA helps workers who have lost jobs through no fault of their own, 
but rather because of increased competition from imports or because of 
offshoring. TAA provides workers with critical income support, job 
training, job search and relocation assistance, and assistance with 
health insurance premiums. TAA relieves some of the hardship these 
workers face--helping them get back on their feet and back into jobs.
  Trade adjustment assistance is designed to help these workers with 
unique needs. Workers who qualify for TAA are mostly older workers--
more than half are over age 45--and they often have a hard time getting 
back into the workforce. Unfortunately, we have all heard many sad 
stories about workers in their fifties or sixties spending years 
looking for new work. Many have been at their jobs for decades. They 
often do not have education beyond high school. For these workers 
especially, the job training and other services offered by TAA are a 
way for workers to gain new skills and enter into new and growing 
industries or occupations.
  We have watched the middle class struggle over the last several 
decades. We see that incomes are stagnating, health insurance and other 
costs are

[[Page 14048]]

skyrocketing, good jobs are disappearing. There are many reasons for 
this, but unfair trade agreements and the failure to enforce our trade 
laws are certainly among them. When cheaper imports come in to the 
U.S., American workers making competing goods or providing competing 
services can lose their jobs as their companies lose business. We have 
watched manufacturing companies and manufacturing jobs disappear, and 
now jobs in the service sector are being offshored as well.
  So there is no question that TAA must continue. The thousands of 
workers who have been laid off as a result of trade are depending on 
us, as will the thousands more who could lose jobs in the future.
  We also have to restore improvements to the program that were 
included in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but which 
expired earlier this year. These improvements updated TAA to respond 
better to our changed economy. The provisions made sure that more 
resources were available for workers to go back to school and get 
training in a new field. They also extended TAA to workers in the 
service sector--in addition to manufacturing workers already covered. 
They also ensured that the program was available to workers whose jobs 
have been shipped to any country, like China or India, even where the 
US does not have a free trade agreement.
  This expansion has been very successful. More than 4 out of 10 
workers--nearly 200,000--who qualified for TAA from the passage of the 
Recovery Act until those provisions expired earlier this year, 
qualified because of the Recovery Act provisions. In my State of Iowa, 
a third of the 4,100 workers that qualified in that time period did so 
under the new provisions. Some of the workers who have participated in 
the TAA program had worked at companies that are well known in my 
State: 1,100 workers from Electrolux alone were certified eligible for 
TAA.
  My State of Iowa has suffered many layoffs as jobs have been shipped 
abroad, especially in the manufacturing sector. I have received many 
letters from Iowans who have been able to take advantage of TAA. One 
person who was laid off from her factory job went back to school to 
become a licensed practical nurse, and she hoped to go on to become a 
registered nurse. Another Iowan wrote of how important the health care 
tax credit has been to her and her husband, who was one of 300 people 
laid off from his company. Another Iowan wrote about how her job was 
being shipped to China; she was thinking of using TAA services to go 
back to college.
  A related program, the TAA Community College and Career Training 
Grants Program will be extremely beneficial to workers through the 
community college system in Iowa and other states. I am thankful that 
this program will soon move ahead, and I understand that grant 
recipients will be announced next week.
  This grant program will provide to community colleges in every State 
funds they desperately need to build capacity and meet training demands 
for 21st century jobs. The funds will total $500 million a year for 4 
years, a huge and necessary injection of funds into the community 
college system. The grants will enable local leaders from the 
education, workforce, economic development, and business communities to 
work together to develop and expand programs as they help workers 
succeed in acquiring the skills, degrees, and credentials needed for 
high-wage, high-skill employment while also meeting the needs of 
employers for skilled workers. Community colleges and their partners 
can use the funds to develop innovative programs or replicate evidence-
based strategies.
  The advanced manufacturing and health care sectors are among the 
largest and fastest-growing sectors in the Iowa economy, and recent 
projections indicate that employers in these sectors will continue to 
need workers with advanced skills to fill vacancies. TAA training 
grants support the training of these workers. Iowa Central Community 
College, for example, has developed an entrepreneurism and business 
development program to respond to regional needs. Iowa Lakes Community 
College has started a wind turbine program--one of the first of its 
kind in the country--that prepares workers for ``green-collar'' jobs 
and ensures that graduates have the skills that area employers need.
  I am very hopeful that we will reauthorize TAA this week. When we 
pass this legislation, we will ensure that a wider range of workers can 
continue to access TAA benefits and services, and that resources are 
available so that workers are prepared for high-skill jobs with family-
sustaining wages. We owe American workers nothing less.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
morning business, tomorrow, September 22, the Senate resume 
consideration of H.R. 2832; that the only remaining amendments in order 
to the Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment and the bill be the following: 
Rubio amendment No. 651, Thune amendment No. 650, and Cornyn amendment 
No. 634; that there be up to 5 hours of debate on the Rubio, Thune, and 
Cornyn amendments equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees, with Senator Cornyn controlling 1 hour of the Republican 
time and with Senators Rubio and Thune each controlling 30 minutes of 
the Republican time; that at a time to be determined by the majority 
leader, after consultation with Senator McConnell, the Senate proceed 
to votes in relation to the Rubio, Thune, Cornyn, and Casey amendments, 
in that order; that there be no amendments, points of order, or motions 
in order to the amendments prior to the votes other than budget points 
of order and the applicable motions to waive; that each amendment be 
subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold; and that there be 2 minutes 
of debate equally divided prior to each vote; that upon the disposition 
of the amendments, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third 
time; that there be up to 10 minutes of debate equally divided between 
the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on passage of the 
bill, as amended, if amended; that the bill be subject to a 60-
affirmative-vote threshold; finally, there be no points of order or 
motions in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage of the bill 
other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________