Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act of 2005

Mr. President, I certainly do appreciate my colleagues' patience this evening. I know that it is late. I apologize for keeping people here late. I find it quite ironic that I come to the floor this late in the evening under the same purposes as my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper. Most of it is out of disappointment in the lack of response from this administration on an issue that I think is absolutely critical to the fabric of this Nation, critical to our families, and critical to our children.

I have asked that the Senate take time tonight to debate the nomination of Robert Portman to be the U.S. Trade Representative to highlight some of the issues related particularly to Saudi Arabia that I believe deserve more time and attention than they have been getting. I certainly expect Congressman Portman will become involved with these issues in his new position.

I support the nomination of Congressman Portman to be our country's top trade negotiator. I have met with him. I have served with him. I believe he brings the right skills to the position and that he will do a very good job at representing our Nation and its vital interest in that position.

I look forward to working closely with him on many issues in the years ahead that are important to my constituents, as I did with his predecessor. But today I would like to focus on one issue in particular that is critically important to me, and that is the children of this Nation.

In May of 2004, I wrote a letter to then-Ambassador Robert Zoellick, with four of my Finance Committee colleagues, raising objections to Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO. Over the past several years, our Government has been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with Saudi Arabia that I understand is now very close to completion. It is also the only major hurdle which prevents Saudi Arabia from being granted favored trading status with the United States and other WTO member nations.

In our letter, we specifically raised concerns regarding Saudi Arabia's participation in the Arab League boycott of Israel and the appropriateness of our Government supporting its admission as a result, given that current law requires the United States to vigorously oppose states that implement that boycott.

We also highlighted concerns regarding Saudi Arabia's efforts to stop the financing of terrorist activities from sources within Saudi Arabia.

Finally, we objected to Saudi Arabia's continued refusal to respect the rights of American women and girls who may never have a meaningful opportunity to leave the Kingdom even as adults. My concerns about the rights of American citizens is one I feel deeply about on a personal level, as a proud citizen of this great Nation, as a mother, and certainly as a Senator from the great State of Arkansas, with tremendous responsibilities to those I serve.

Needless to say, when I received a response to our letter last week, 11 months after we sent the letter to the administration--we received a response last week from our Acting Trade Representative 2 days before Congressman Portman's confirmation hearing--it only referenced the boycott and did not make one reference to the other two issues. I was deeply troubled, and I hope others will be, too.

I was even more alarmed to read press reports about our trade negotiators working around the clock to finish the agreement prior to the meeting between President Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in Crawford, TX, this last Monday.

I want to start at the beginning of this story regarding the rights of American citizens because I think this issue is very important. Over the past several years, I have worked with Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana and others to highlight our Government's failure to aggressively defend the rights of American women and children in Saudi Arabia. This issue came to my attention because Heidi Al-Omary from Jonesboro, AR, was abducted by her Saudi-born father in 1997. Saudi Arabia continues to invoke its law and religion to detain my constituent in violation of U.S. law and a valid court order.

Heidi was abducted more than 7 years ago, and she has been stuck there ever since because the Saudi Government does not believe Heidi's father, who is a wanted fugitive in our country, has done anything wrong. This man used our legal system to gain access by pressing the judge for unsupervised visitation, knowing full well that the first unsupervised visit and the child would be gone. Her mother knew that. Her mother argued with the judge, and the judge said: I have to give this man the visitation rights. On the first unsupervised visit in the dead of the night, that woman lost her child. She was taken from her. She did not see her child for 5 years. I do not know how we can stand by and let that happen.

I attended a Little League game with my boys recently. I sat in that field and I thought how blessed I am to be a part of these children's lives. Then I thought of this poor woman whose child was taken from her against our laws, and for 5 years she missed those precious years of that child's life.

Earlier tonight, waiting on these votes, I sat in a dark room with my children as they said their prayers. That woman has not had that. She has not experienced that blessing because her child was taken from her. She was only allowed to see that child 2 years ago, under restrictive supervision.

That is not what we are about in this country. We are about standing up for our children and the citizens of this great land. We have an opportunity to do it, and we should.

Heidi's mother Margaret McClain resides in my home State, in Jonesboro, AR. In July of 2002, Ms. McClain was permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia to visit her daughter. She was brought there under the assumption that she would have a visit with her child. When she arrived, the visit had been moved. She traveled through the desert to some unknown place where she finally got to meet with her daughter with people breathing down her neck. After 5 years, when her child was taken from her in the dead of the night, she finally gets to see her. It is unbelievable to me that that child was taken from this country in 1997 and it took us until 2002 to ask for her return.

Ms. McClain spent 6 days traveling to and from Saudi Arabia, yet Mr. Al-Omary permitted her to spend only a few hours with Heidi during that trip. Prior to that visitation, Ms. McClain had not seen or spoken to her child since she was taken from her from the United States 5 years previously.

During Ms. McClain's first trip to Saudi Arabia in July of 2002, Mr. Al-Omary acted in a verbally abusive manner toward her, took steps to disrupt Ms. McClain's planned visit with her daughter and, in addition, officials at United States diplomatic installations in Saudi Arabia reported at the time that Mr. Al-Omary was uncooperative in arranging United States Consular visits with Heidi.

At one point following Ms. McClain's visit to Saudi Arabia, Mr. Al- Omary demanded the United States Government send him a letter of appreciation for allowing Ms. McClain to visit her daughter who he had kidnapped before he would authorize future United States State Department welfare-and-whereabout visits with their daughter Heidi.

Thankfully, our Government did not send Mr. Al-Omary a thank-you note, and a subsequent welfare-and-whereabout visit did occur after pressure was applied by United States and Saudi officials.

In May of 2003, after months of preparation by Ms. McClain, my office, and the Vice President, Ms. McClain and Heidi's two adult siblings were permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia to see Heidi a second time. Ms. McClain was permitted greater access to her daughter compared to the first visit, but Mr. Al-Omary refused to grant a simple request to spend time alone with her daughter. Ms. McClain is now making preparations for a third trip to Saudi Arabia to visit her daughter again this summer.

I believe in communicating. I believe in working hard to get along. Visitation and communication between the left-behind parent and an abducted child is important and should be encouraged. However, after more than 7 years we ought to do a little bit more than just talking about more travel dates and more plane tickets. We should be talking about bringing a young American citizen home.

For too long, it seems, the U.S. Government's goal in difficult cases such as this has been to simply maximize visitation and contact between U.S. parents and their abducted children in an effort to avoid confrontation with foreign governments. We know there are sensitive situations and sensitive relationships with countries all across the globe, but you do not gain respect until you demand respect in the relationships that you hold.

We in no way have acted aggressively enough in demanding the respect for the laws of our land and the citizens, particularly Heidi, who are being held against their will.

It is safe to say that I am not satisfied with the approach of just another plane ticket and just another travel date. I firmly believe our policy should be aggressively to seek recovery of abducted children, especially when they are taken to a country in which women, regardless of their age, never achieve independence--a right we cherish as Americans and we fight for.

In Saudi Arabia, women and girls are under the complete control of their fathers, husbands, or other close male relatives their entire lives. According to the State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices most recent edition which was released in

February of this year, all women in the country are prohibited from driving and were dependent upon males for transportation. Likewise, women must obtain written permission from a male relative or guardian before the government would allow them to travel abroad. The requirement to obtain permission from a male relative or guardian applied also to foreign women married to citizens of Saudi Arabia and to the minor and single adult daughters of Saudi fathers.

The report goes on to say that women have few political or social rights and were not treated as equal members of society. Women are restricted in their use of public facilities when men are present. For example, women must enter city buses by separate rear entrances and sit in specially designated sections.

Further, under Saudi law, women may not be admitted to a hospital for medical treatment without the consent of a male relative. However, according to the report, this was not always enforced, thank goodness.

Perhaps most troubling to me is that arranged marriages at an early age are socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia. Heidi is a young lady. She left here as a child, abducted, taken against her will, and against our law. This summer, she turns 13. I am increasingly concerned that she may be deprived of any meaningful choice about who she marries and when she bears a child. Ultimately, Heidi's ability or inability to exercise control over these most personal matters may very well determine if she is ever able to return to her rightful home in the United States.

I recognize the issue of international child abduction is not limited to Saudi Arabia. However, the status of female abductees in the Kingdom is quite unique since, under Saudi law and custom, women have very limited autonomy and may never, ever have a meaningful opportunity to leave, even as adults.

As I mentioned earlier, I focused my attention on this issue because I don't believe our Government is doing everything it can to stand up for the rights of American citizens such as Heidi. After studying the history of Heidi's case and others, I have sadly concluded that our own Government has failed to stand up for Heidi and others such as her. Perhaps most telling in this case is that even though Heidi is a U.S. citizen and was kidnapped in August of 1997, our Government did not formally ask that she be returned until October of 2002. To me, that is inexcusable. It is why I think our Government owes this young girl an extra effort now, when she is most vulnerable, about to turn 13, about to have life-threatening decisions made for her without her consent, and without any of her emotional input.

To bring greater attention to this issue, in June of 2002, all 13 women Senators who were Members at the time sent President Bush a letter, asking him to take up the cause of American women and children held against their will in Saudi Arabia. I received a response to this letter from the then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in November of 2003. And that was 18 months after 13 women Senators wrote to this administration specifically addressed to the President of the United States. I only heard from the Secretary of State after I had placed a hold on the nomination of James Oberwetter to be our Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. In his letter, Secretary Powell stated that the State Department is committed to recovering abducted children and will continue to seek the return of abducted children such as Heidi.

Over the past several years, I have also met with multiple members of the administration, submitted written questions to nominees to the positions in the administration who have jurisdiction over these matters.

In 2002, in 2003, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty stated in meetings with me, in public testimony, in response to my written questions, that the return of abducted children is a priority and it is the State Department's goal and our Government will continue to press to recover abducted children.

In November of 2003, now United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Oberwetter stated in response to my written questions that the release of Americans who have been abducted to Saudi Arabia is a priority and that he will raise the case of Heidi Al-Omary at the earliest opportunity. That was 2003.

In January of 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated in written responses to my written questions that she would raise the case of Heidi Al-Omary at the earliest opportunity and that the return of abducted children is truly a priority.

In April of 2005, USTR nominee Robert Portman made a commitment to me at his confirmation hearing this month and in written responses to my written questions to work with me in collaboration with the State Department to address this issue.

It sounds like more plane tickets. It sounds like just more dates and more plans for visitation, eliminating that mother's opportunity to share the kind of time with her child that each one of us has enjoyed.

Finally, last week, I wrote President Bush prior to his meeting on Monday with Crown Prince Abdullah in Crawford, TX, asking him to raise this issue. I do not know who else to write in the administration. I do not know who else to appeal to. I do not know who else to sit around waiting for an answer from on an issue that could not be more important, our children--not just my children, not just your children, Mr. President, not just the children of other Senators, but children of this Nation.

I continue to be in contact with the White House, and I welcome the opportunity to work with them in resolving this matter. But as my colleague from Delaware came to the floor, and having asked for the last 2 or 3 years for a working relationship that might bring about results, I come to the floor tonight with a heavy heart, disappointed in the response I have gotten over the last 3 years but hopeful, because a mother's heart is always hopeful, just as the mother of that child's heart is hopeful every time I talk to her. Every time I talk to her, she never gives up.

I know officers at the State Department who have responsibility for abduction and wrongful retention cases work hard. I know they do. I know they care about the children involved. I am not doubting that. I am not frustrated with them because I know their hands are tied. They take their instructions from higher up. And higher up does not seem to feel like this is a priority. But I am speaking out to express my profound frustration with the lack of results in this case and our Government's apparent policy of not rocking the boat when difficult-to- solve cases like Heidi's linger in limbo indefinitely. I know our Government has said repeatedly that the return of abducted children is a priority, but it is just not a big enough priority. I do not think we have done everything we can in this case, which brings me back to the nomination now pending before the Senate.

When countries such as Saudi Arabia ask our Government to grant favored trading status, I think it is only appropriate to step back and consider all facets of our relationship and foreign policy goals before we hand them the cookie jar.

I have already discussed in some detail the letter I wrote to Ambassador Zoellick in May of last year. Since that time, in September of 2004, I think it is important to note that the Secretary of State has designated Saudi Arabia as a country of particular concern in the State Department's annual International Religious Freedom Report. So according to the administration, Saudi Arabia's record in this area is getting worse, not better. This status is reserved for a handful of governments that have ``engaged in or tolerate particularly severe violations of religious freedom.'' Respect, Mr. President, respect for our faith and for other faiths--just as we try desperately in our country to respect those.

According to the State Department's report on Saudi Arabia:

Freedom of religion does not exist. Citizens are denied the

freedom to choose or change their religion, and noncitizens

practice their beliefs under severe restrictions.

Further, the report states that Saudi custom officials routinely open mail and shipments to search for contraband, which includes the Bible.

As my colleagues may also be aware, under this designation, the President is supposed to choose from a menu of sanctions stipulated by Congress, which raises questions in my mind about why we should be sanctioning

Saudi Arabia on one hand while trying to reward them with a trade deal on the other without evidence of meaningful improvement.

When I inquired this week about the status of sanctions on Saudi Arabia under this law, I was told that even though the deadline established in the statute to make a decision passed on March 15, no decision from this administration has been announced.

I truly regret that Congress does not have the opportunity under current law to vote on a bilateral trade agreement relating to Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO. I think that could make a real difference with a country such as Saudi Arabia, and it would significantly enhance our Nation's ability to make meaningful progress on many of our foreign policy goals.

To put this into a little different context, I point out what I see as a direct contradiction in our trade policy specific to congressional review of certain countries. I will use the country of Ukraine as a good example. Many of you remember the moving address before a joint session of Congress by the brave new President of the Ukraine just a few weeks ago. We heard him. In his address, he asked, pleaded that Congress graduate his country from what is known as Jackson-Vanik--a procedural step taken by Congress before any former Communist country receives the most favored trading relationship with the United States; a procedural step that is proving to at least get the attention of the Vietnamese Government, that is working desperately within the next year, hopefully; a procedural step that Saudi Arabia does not have to overcome; a procedural step unavailable to Members of Congress to have their legitimate concerns addressed.

We will not have a vote when it comes to their being rewarded with membership to the WTO. And sadly, the only votes we really have much of any say over are these nominations, when we put holds on the names of very capable individuals who want to serve this country. But without that vote, our concerns will be left to Congressman Portman and the administration to raise. So that is why I am here in the dead of the night, to put into the Record and, hopefully, into the hearts and minds of the few people who are left listening that these nominations are important, and we do believe in these individuals to have great capabilities, but oftentimes they are not allowed the authority to exercise that.

Given all these issues I have highlighted--the Arab boycott of Israel; terrorism financing, which is costing us more and more in Iraq; the lack of religious freedom; and the lack of respect Saudi Arabia has shown for our laws and its citizens--for the life of me, I cannot understand why we are in such a hurry to walk down the aisle on this trade agreement. What is going on?

Most of the Members of this body know me pretty well. I am not trying to be ugly. But I think someone must stand up and tell the truth. Our policy with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is go along to get along, even when the rights of American citizens and fundamental principles such as equality and freedom that define what is good about our Nation are sacrificed.

As a proud mother of twin boys, I try hard to make sure they understand that actions in life are based on priorities. They are based on choices that each of us has to make. But without a doubt, the choices we make and the actions we take have real and substantive consequences and can have ramifications far beyond a single issue or event. I try so hard to teach them that friendships are based on mutual trust and respect.

To all of those nations across this globe, who are our neighbors, we want desperately to build on our friendships. But if those friendships are to be long lasting and to be worthwhile, they must absolutely be built on respect.

I do not advocate severing our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Neighbors and friends are important to have. Whether you grew up in rural America, as I did, and depend on them to help you bring your crops in or to raise your children or to just get you through the month, it is important to be a good neighbor, and it is important to have good neighbors. But it is hard to have that relationship if you don't ask of them the kind of respect that allows you to depend on one another.

As I said, I don't advocate in severing our relationship with Saudi Arabia. I hope we can reach out. But until this administration takes those steps, starts to answer our letters and our phone calls, and makes a few attempts in reaching out to Saudi Arabia, the leaders of that nation, to express to them how important our children are to us, we have a problem. I do believe we need to step back and fully consider the values we cherish as Americans as we move forward into the future. This is a very real place where it has to begin.

I appreciate the patience of the Chair, and I yield the floor.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, our Nation's manufacturers and their employees can compete against the best in the world, but they cannot compete against nations that provide huge subsidies and other unfair advantages to their producers. I hear from manufacturers in my State time and time again whose efforts to compete successfully in the global economy simply cannot overcome the practices of illegal pricing and subsidies of nations such as

China. The results of these unfair practices are lost jobs, shuttered factories, and decimated communities.

Consider this one example. The American residential wood furniture industry has experienced devastating losses due to surges of unfairly priced furniture imports from China. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, 34,700 jobs, or 28 percent of the workforce, have been lost in the U.S. furniture industry since 2000. One furniture manufacturer in Maine, Moosehead Manufacturing, was forced to eliminate a quarter of its employees due to the unfair market conditions it faces.

Unfairly priced imports from China are a leading cause in these job losses. China's wooden bedroom furniture exports to the U.S., which amounted to just $169 million in 1999, reached an estimated $1.2 billion in 2003. By subsidizing investments in furniture manufacturing facilities, China is exploiting the U.S. market to the benefit of its producers and putting our employees at an unfair advantage.

This is why I am introducing the ``Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act,'' a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh, who has worked closely with me on this legislation. This bill revises current trade remedy laws to ensure that U.S. countervailing duty laws apply to imports from non-market economies, such as China.

Our Nation's trade remedy laws are intended to give American industries and their employees relief from the effects of illegal trade practices. Unfortunately, some countries in the world choose to cheat instead of compete fairly. In these cases, U.S. industries can file petitions under U.S. trade remedy laws for relief. Under current Commerce Department practice, however, U.S. industries competing with these unfairly advantaged foreign producers can file an anti-subsidy petitions against any market economy--such as Canada or Chile--but not against a non-market economy such as China. As a result, those countries, such as China, that subsidize their industries the most heavily and cause the most injury to U.S. industries and workers are exempt from the reach of American anti-subsidy laws.

It is time that this was changed. It is simply not fair to prevent U.S. industries from seeking redress from these unfair trade practices because our trade remedy laws are outdated.

Over the past two decades, there have been significant economic changes in many of the countries classified as non-market economies. This is particularly true in China, one of our largest trading partners and the country with which the United States currently runs its largest trade deficit.

Beginning in the early 1980's and continuing today, China has undertaken major economic reforms. Today, China's economy is not completely state-controlled. Government price controls on a wide range of products have been eliminated. Many enterprises and even entire industries have been allowed to operate and compete in an economic system that has elements of a free market. And, of course, China has taken steps toward fully integrating into the global trading system by joining the World Trade Organization and by working toward the establishment of a modern commercial, financial, legal, and regulatory infrastructure.

The problem is not China's economic liberalization and modernization. The problem is this: now that China has the capacity to be a key international economic player, the country has repeatedly refused to comply with standard international trading rules and practices. And these violations include the use of subsidies and other economic incentives that are designed to give its producers an unfair competitive advantage.

Perhaps the most glaring subsidy comes in the form of currency manipulation. By keeping the Chinese yuan pegged to the U.S. dollar at artificially low levels, the Chinese undervalue the prices of their exports. Not only does this practice provide their producers with a price advantage, but also it violates International Monetary Fund and WTO rules. The Chinese government also reimburses many enterprises for their operating losses and provides loans to uncreditworthy companies.

Currently, U.S. industries have no direct recourse to combat these unfair practices. They instead must rely upon government-to-government negotiations or on the dispute settlement processes of international organizations such as the WTO. While these channels might eventually lead to relief, it usually takes years to see results--and by that time, that industry could already be decimated.

Unfair market conditions cannot continue to cause our manufacturers to hemorrhage jobs. No state understands this more than my home state of Maine. According to a recent study by the National Association of Manufacturers, on a percentage basis, Maine lost more manufacturing jobs in the previous three years than any other state. This is why organizations such as the Maine Forest Products Council and the Maine Wood Products Association have strongly endorsed my proposal.

The Stopping Overseas Subsidies bill is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that has a broad range of support across many industries and geographical areas. A companion bill is being introduced today in the House by Representatives Phil English of Pennsylvania and Artur Davis of Alabama. Last year, the Senate bill had eighteen cosponsors.

I am proud that over twenty organizations and a number of private companies, representing a range of industries, have endorsed this bill. Some of these organizations include: The American Forest & Paper Association, the National Council of Textile Organizations, the Printing Industries of America, the Steel Manufacturers Association, and the Catfish Farmers of America. Of particular note, the National Association of Manufacturers has endorsed this bill and has listed it as one of its top trade agenda items in 2005.

In addition, the United States Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan organization established by Congress in 2000 to provide recommendations to Congress on the relationship between the United States and China, has endorsed the goals of this bill. In its annual report to Congress in June 2004, the Commission stated, ``U.S. policy currently prevents application of countervailing duty laws to nonmarket economy countries such as China. This limits the ability of the United States to combat China's extensive use of subsidies that give Chinese companies an unfair competitive advantage. The Commission recommends that Congress urge the Department of Commerce to make countervailing duty laws application to nonmarket economies. If Commerce does not do so, Congress should pass legislation to achieve the same effect.''

U.S. industries don't want protection--they want fair competition. Illegal subsidies distort fair competition, regardless of the economic system in which they are used. Our legislation simply levels the playing field by allowing anti-subsidy petitions to be brought against non-market economies in addition to market economies.

Countries such as China want to have all the benefits of engaging in international trading institutions and systems and continue to cheat on the system with no penalties. It is time these countries were held to the same standards as other countries around the world. I ask you to join me in supporting the SOS bill to ensure that all countries are held accountable for their trade practices.

Mr. President, as the Senate co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am pleased to join Senators Bond and Mikulski in introducing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2005.

Alzheimer's is a devastating disease that takes a tremendous personal and economic toll on both the individual and the family. As someone whose family has experienced the pain of Alzheimer's, I know that there is no more helpless feeling than to watch the progression of this dreadful disease. It is an agonizing experience to look into the eyes of a loved one only to receive a confused look in return.

Ronald Reagan had a profound effect on our Nation in many ways during his Presidency. But what many of us will remember most is the grace and dignity with which he and his wife Nancy faced the final battle against Alzheimer's--the one campaign they knew he wouldn't win.

Ironically, it was President Reagan who first drew national attention to Alzheimer's disease when he launched a national campaign against the disease some 22 years ago. In 1983, President Reagan proclaimed November as National Alzheimer's Disease Month. In his proclamation, President Reagan said: ``The emotional, financial and social consequences of Alzheimer's disease are so devastating that it deserves attention. Science and clinical medicine are striving to improve our understanding of what causes Alzheimer's disease and how to treat it successfully. Right now, research is the only hope for victims and their families.''

An estimated 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, more than double the number in 1980. Moreover, Alzheimer's disease costs the United States more than $100 billion a year, primarily in nursing home and other long-term care costs. This figure will only increase exponentially as the baby boom generation ages. As the baby boomers move into the years of highest risk for Alzheimer's disease, a strong and sustained research effort is our best tool to slow down the progression and prevent the onset of this terrible disease.

Our investments in Alzheimer's disease research have begun to pay dividends. Effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease and a possible vaccine are tantalizingly within our grasp. Moreover, if scientists can find a way to delay the onset of this devastating disease for even five years, our Nation will save at least $50 billion in annual health and long-term care costs and an incalculable amount in human suffering.

If we are to keep up the momentum we have established, we must increase our investment in Alzheimer's disease research. Millions of Americans, including the families of Alzheimer patients, are profoundly grateful for our historic accomplishment of doubling funding for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. We have made tremendous progress, but more must be done. The bill we are introducing today therefore doubles the authorization levels for Alzheimer's research at the NIH from the current funding level of $700 million to $1.4 million.

In addition to increasing funding for research, our bill provides much needed support for Alzheimer's patients and their families by increasing funding for the National Family Caregiver Support Program and by providing a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help families meet the costs of caring for a loved one with long-term care needs.

The Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2005 will serve as a living tribute to President Reagan and will offer hope to all of those suffering from the disease today. It is now time for Congress to pick up the banner and pass this important legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Baucus in the reintroduction of the Encouraging Work Act of 2005. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and We1fare-to-Work Tax Credit (W-t-W) are tax incentives that encourage employers to hire public assistance recipients and other individuals with barriers to employment. The combination of Welfare Reform passed by Congress in 1996 and the assistance to employers found in the WOTC and W-t-W has enabled expanded opportunity for many Americans. Yet more can be done. We were pleased that the Senate JOBS bill passed last year included a permanent WOTC/W-t-W provision along with helpful reforms largely supported by the Administration. Unfortunately, it was only extended in another tax relief bill. Without action by Congress WOTC and W-t-W will expire on January 1, 2006.

Under present law, WOTC provides a 40 percent tax credit on the first $6,000 of wages for those working at least 400 hours, or a partial credit of 25 percent for those working 120-399 hours. W-t-W provides a 35 percent tax credit on the first $10,000 of wages for those working 400 hours in the first year. In the second year, the W-t-W credit is 50 percent of the first $10,000 of wages earned. WOTC and W-t-W are key elements of welfare reform. A growing number of employers use these programs in the retail, health care, hotel, financial services, food, and other industries. These programs have helped over 2,700,000 previously dependent persons to find jobs.

WOTC and W-t-W eligibility is limited to: 1. Recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) in 9 of the 18 months ending on the hiring date; 2. individua1s receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits; 3. disabled individuals with vocational rehabilitation referrals; 4. veterans on food stamps; 5. individuals in households receiving food stamp benefits; 6. qualified summer youth employees; 7. low-income ex-felons; and 8. individua1s age 18-24 1iving in empowerment zones or renewal communities. Eligibility for W-t-W is limited to individuals receiving welfare benefits for 18 consecutive months ending on the hiring date. More than 80 percent of WOTC and W-t- W hires were previously dependent on public assistance programs. These credits are both a hiring incentive--offsetting some of the higher costs of recruiting, hiring, and retaining public assistance recipients and other low-skilled individua1s--and a retention incentive, providing a higher reward for those who stay longer on the job.

After eight years of experience with these programs, their value has been well demonstrated. In 2001, the GAO issued a report that indicated that employers have significantly changed their hiring practices because of WOTC. With the resources provided by WOTC, employers have provided job mentors, lengthened training periods, engaged in recruiting outreach, and listed jobs or requested referrals from public agencies or partnerships. WOTC and W-t-W have become a true public- private partnership in which the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, the states, and employers have forged excellent working relationships.

But the challenges for employers and those looking for better opportunities are real. The job skills of eligible persons leaving welfare are sometimes limited, and the costs of recruiting, training, and supervising low-skilled individuals cause many employers to look elsewhere for employees. WOTC and W-t-W are proven incentives for encouraging employers to seek employees from the targeted groups. Despite the considerable success of WOTC and W-t-W, many vulnerable individuals still need a boost in finding employment. There are several legislative changes that would strengthen these programs, expand employment opportunities for needy individuals, and make the programs more attractive to employers.

Combine WOTC and W-t-W. The Administration's FY 2006 budget proposes to simplify these important employment incentives by combining them into one credit and making the rules for computing the combined credits simpler. The credits would be combined by creating a new welfare-to- work target group under WOTC. The minimum employment periods and credit rates for the first year of employment under the present work opportunity tax credit would apply to W-t-W employees. The maximum amount of eligible wages would continue to be $10,000 for W-t-W employees and $6,000 for other target groups ($3,000 for summer youth). In addition, the second year 50-percent credit under W-t-W would continue to be available for W-t-W employees under the modified WOTC.

Eliminate Requirement to Determine Family Income for Ex-Felons. Under current law, only those ex-felons whose annual family income is 70 percent or less than the Bureau of Labor Statistics lower living standard during the six months preceding the hiring date are eligible for WOTC. The Administration's FY 2006 budget proposes to eliminate the family income attribution rule.

Permanent Extension of WOTC and W-t-W. Permanent extension would provide these programs with greater stability, thereby encouraging more employers to participate, make investments in expanding outreach to identify potential workers from the targeted groups, and avoid the wasteful disruption of termination and renewal. A permanent extension would also encourage the state job services to invest the resources needed to make the certification process more efficient and employer- friendly.

Raise the WOTC age eligibility ceiling from 24 to 39 years of age for members of food stamp households and ``high-risk youth'' living in enterprise zones or renewal communities. Current WOTC eligibility rules heavily favor the hiring of women because single mothers are much more likely to be on welfare or food stamps. Women constitute about 80 percent of those hired under the WOTC program, but men from welfare households face the same or even greater barriers to finding work. Increasing the age ceiling in the ``food stamp category'' would greatly improve the job prospects for many absentee fathers and other ``at risk''

males. This change would be completely consistent with program objectives because many food stamp households include adults who are not working, and more than 90 percent of those on food stamps live below the poverty line.

WOTC and W-t-W are also key elements of welfare reform. Employers in the retail, health care, hotel, financial services, and food industries have incorporated this program into their hiring practices and through these programs, more than 2,700,000 previously dependent persons have found work. A recent report issued by the New York State Department of Labor bears this out in economic terms. Comparing the cost of WOTC credits, taken by New York state employers during the period 1996-2003 (for a total of $192.59 million), with savings achieved through closed welfare cases and reductions in vocational rehabilitation programs and jail spending (for a total of $199.89 million), the State of New York concluded that WOTC provided net benefits to the taxpayers even without taking into account the additional economic benefits resulting from the addition of new wages.

In that regard, the New York State analysis concluded that the roughly $90 million in wages paid to WOTC workers since 1996 generated roughly $225 million in increased economic activity. Perhaps even more importantly, the study found that roughly fifty-eight percent of the TANF recipients who entered private sector employment with the assistance of WOTC stayed off welfare. I mention the New York State study because it is the first of its kind; however, I am certain that similar conclusions would be reached in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or any of the other forty-eight states and the District of Columbia. These programs work and do so at a net savings to taxpayers. In fact, over a 7-year period there were more than 110,000 certifications for both WOTC and W-t-W in Pennsylvania, alone enabling many to leave welfare and find private sector work. The legislation is supported by hundreds of employers throughout Pennsylvania and around the country. WOTC and W-t-W have received high praise as well from the federal government. A 2001 GAO study concluded that employers have significantly changed their hiring practices because of WOTC by providing job mentors, longer training periods, and significant recruiting outreach efforts.

WOTC and W-t-W are not traditional government jobs programs. Instead they are precisely the type of program that we should champion in a time when we need to be fiscally responsible. These are efficient and low cost public-private partnerships that have as their goal to provide a means by which individuals can transition from welfare to a lifetime of work and dignity.

The Work Opportunity Credit and Welfare-to-Work Credit have been successful in moving traditionally hard-to-employ persons off welfare and into the workforce, where they contribute to our economy. However, employer participation in these important programs can be increased, particularly among small and medium-sized employers. This is due to the complexity of the credits and the fact that they are both only temporary provisions of the tax code subject to renewal every year or two. Small, medium, and even some large employers find it difficult to justify developing the necessary infrastructure to administer and participate in these programs when their continued existence beyond one or two years is constantly in question.

This legislation will remedy this problem by combining WOTC and W-t-W into one, more easily administered tax credit, and by making it a permanent part of the tax code. Many organizations including the National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, Food Marketing Institute, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Restaurant Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association, National Roofing Contractors Association, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, American Nursery and Landscape Association, and the American Health Care Association support this legislaiton. Representatives Jerry Weller R-IL, Charles Rangel D-NY, and Phil English R-PA are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, our Nation's manufacturers and their employees can compete against the best in the world, but they cannot compete against nations that provide huge subsidies and other unfair advantages to their producers. I hear from manufacturers in my State time and time again whose efforts to compete successfully in the global economy simply cannot overcome the practices of illegal pricing and subsidies of nations such as

China. The results of these unfair practices are lost jobs, shuttered factories, and decimated communities.

Consider this one example. The American residential wood furniture industry has experienced devastating losses due to surges of unfairly priced furniture imports from China. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, 34,700 jobs, or 28 percent of the workforce, have been lost in the U.S. furniture industry since 2000. One furniture manufacturer in Maine, Moosehead Manufacturing, was forced to eliminate a quarter of its employees due to the unfair market conditions it faces.

Unfairly priced imports from China are a leading cause in these job losses. China's wooden bedroom furniture exports to the U.S., which amounted to just $169 million in 1999, reached an estimated $1.2 billion in 2003. By subsidizing investments in furniture manufacturing facilities, China is exploiting the U.S. market to the benefit of its producers and putting our employees at an unfair advantage.

This is why I am introducing the ``Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act,'' a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh, who has worked closely with me on this legislation. This bill revises current trade remedy laws to ensure that U.S. countervailing duty laws apply to imports from non-market economies, such as China.

Our Nation's trade remedy laws are intended to give American industries and their employees relief from the effects of illegal trade practices. Unfortunately, some countries in the world choose to cheat instead of compete fairly. In these cases, U.S. industries can file petitions under U.S. trade remedy laws for relief. Under current Commerce Department practice, however, U.S. industries competing with these unfairly advantaged foreign producers can file an anti-subsidy petitions against any market economy--such as Canada or Chile--but not against a non-market economy such as China. As a result, those countries, such as China, that subsidize their industries the most heavily and cause the most injury to U.S. industries and workers are exempt from the reach of American anti-subsidy laws.

It is time that this was changed. It is simply not fair to prevent U.S. industries from seeking redress from these unfair trade practices because our trade remedy laws are outdated.

Over the past two decades, there have been significant economic changes in many of the countries classified as non-market economies. This is particularly true in China, one of our largest trading partners and the country with which the United States currently runs its largest trade deficit.

Beginning in the early 1980's and continuing today, China has undertaken major economic reforms. Today, China's economy is not completely state-controlled. Government price controls on a wide range of products have been eliminated. Many enterprises and even entire industries have been allowed to operate and compete in an economic system that has elements of a free market. And, of course, China has taken steps toward fully integrating into the global trading system by joining the World Trade Organization and by working toward the establishment of a modern commercial, financial, legal, and regulatory infrastructure.

The problem is not China's economic liberalization and modernization. The problem is this: now that China has the capacity to be a key international economic player, the country has repeatedly refused to comply with standard international trading rules and practices. And these violations include the use of subsidies and other economic incentives that are designed to give its producers an unfair competitive advantage.

Perhaps the most glaring subsidy comes in the form of currency manipulation. By keeping the Chinese yuan pegged to the U.S. dollar at artificially low levels, the Chinese undervalue the prices of their exports. Not only does this practice provide their producers with a price advantage, but also it violates International Monetary Fund and WTO rules. The Chinese government also reimburses many enterprises for their operating losses and provides loans to uncreditworthy companies.

Currently, U.S. industries have no direct recourse to combat these unfair practices. They instead must rely upon government-to-government negotiations or on the dispute settlement processes of international organizations such as the WTO. While these channels might eventually lead to relief, it usually takes years to see results--and by that time, that industry could already be decimated.

Unfair market conditions cannot continue to cause our manufacturers to hemorrhage jobs. No state understands this more than my home state of Maine. According to a recent study by the National Association of Manufacturers, on a percentage basis, Maine lost more manufacturing jobs in the previous three years than any other state. This is why organizations such as the Maine Forest Products Council and the Maine Wood Products Association have strongly endorsed my proposal.

The Stopping Overseas Subsidies bill is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that has a broad range of support across many industries and geographical areas. A companion bill is being introduced today in the House by Representatives Phil English of Pennsylvania and Artur Davis of Alabama. Last year, the Senate bill had eighteen cosponsors.

I am proud that over twenty organizations and a number of private companies, representing a range of industries, have endorsed this bill. Some of these organizations include: The American Forest & Paper Association, the National Council of Textile Organizations, the Printing Industries of America, the Steel Manufacturers Association, and the Catfish Farmers of America. Of particular note, the National Association of Manufacturers has endorsed this bill and has listed it as one of its top trade agenda items in 2005.

In addition, the United States Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan organization established by Congress in 2000 to provide recommendations to Congress on the relationship between the United States and China, has endorsed the goals of this bill. In its annual report to Congress in June 2004, the Commission stated, ``U.S. policy currently prevents application of countervailing duty laws to nonmarket economy countries such as China. This limits the ability of the United States to combat China's extensive use of subsidies that give Chinese companies an unfair competitive advantage. The Commission recommends that Congress urge the Department of Commerce to make countervailing duty laws application to nonmarket economies. If Commerce does not do so, Congress should pass legislation to achieve the same effect.''

U.S. industries don't want protection--they want fair competition. Illegal subsidies distort fair competition, regardless of the economic system in which they are used. Our legislation simply levels the playing field by allowing anti-subsidy petitions to be brought against non-market economies in addition to market economies.

Countries such as China want to have all the benefits of engaging in international trading institutions and systems and continue to cheat on the system with no penalties. It is time these countries were held to the same standards as other countries around the world. I ask you to join me in supporting the SOS bill to ensure that all countries are held accountable for their trade practices.

Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the ``Electric Transmission and Reliability Enhancement Act of 2005''. It is my intention to build on the competitive wholesale open access policies adopted by the Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. My legislation would extend and improve these open, non-discriminatory access policies; remove antiquated federal statutory barriers that stand in the way of competitive wholesale markets; encourage increased investment in our transmission system and establish enforceable reliability standards to help ensure the continued reliability of the interstate transmission system.

The Congress has been debating how to update the antiquated statutory and regulatory framework governing the electric industry for over eight years. We repeatedly have tried and failed to enact legislation that would provide the right economic signals and regulatory certainty necessary for industry and wholesale market modernization. The loser in all of this has been the consumer, who has been denied the full benefits that access provides to fairly priced, reliable supplies of power. I have come to the conclusion that if we are to legislate successfully, we will have to pare down our wish list to the bare essentials plus those issues necessary for the electric industry to attract the capital it needs to keep our lights on and ensure that customers pay no more for their power than is fair and necessary.

It seems clear that if truly competitive wholesale markets are to exist, there is a need to ensure that all industry participants play by the same rules. While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has tried to ensure this, the Commission's tools are limited. Only Congress can give FERC the tools it needs to ensure that all industry participants in competitive wholesale markets play by the same rules.

Under present federal law FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over transmission facilities owned by public power agencies, municipalities and cooperatives. In the West these types of entities own a substantial portion, perhaps as much as half of the interstate electric transmission system. As a matter of fact, in the Western Electric Coordinating Council, an area that encompasses all or part of 11 Western states and parts of Canada, non-FERC jurisdictional facilities account for 52 percent of transmission miles.

My legislation would permit FERC to require certain nonregulated utilities to offer transmission service at comparable rates to those they charge themselves, and on terms and conditions comparable to those applicable to jurisdictional public utilities. Currently nonregulated transmitting utilities would not be subject to the full panoply of FERC regulation under this provision. Instead, a ``light handed'' form of regulation would apply and small nonregulated entities, such as those that sell less than 4,000,000 MW/h per year, would be entirely exempt from these nondiscrimination requirements.

It also seems clear that the Public Utility Holding Company Act is hindering necessary restructuring of the industry and the deployment of capital into an industry that desperately needs it. Investors are deterred simply because they do not want to deal with the PUHCA rules and restrictions. If repealed, utility securities will continue to be regulated by the SEC, FERC and most state commissions. Mergers and acquisitions of jurisdictional assets would still require FERC and state commission approval and review by the Department of Justice, DOJ, and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. FERC and state commissions would still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross-subsidies.

Despite State progress in administering the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, it is clear that PURPA continues to provide special privileges to certain favored generators at the expense of utilities and their customers. Like PUHCA, PURPA is no longer needed in today's competitive wholesale markets. My legislation prospectively eliminates the mandatory purchase and sell obligations of PURPA.

Over the years the grid has been well protected through voluntary standards established by the North American Electric Reliability Council. NERC's voluntary reliability standards--which are not enforceable--have generally been complied with by the electric power industry. But with the opening of the wholesale power market to competition, our transmission grid is being used in ways for which it was not designed. New system strains are also being created by the break-up of vertically integrated utilities and by the emergence of new market structures and participants. The results of these changes have been an increase in the number and severity of violations of NERC's voluntary rules.

My legislation converts the existing NERC voluntary reliability system into a mandatory reliability system. A North America-wide organization would have the authority to establish and enforce reliability standards, and take into account regional differences. The new reliability organization will be run by market participants, and will be overseen by the FERC in the U.S. The organization will be made up of representatives of everyone who is affected--residential, commercial and industrial consumers; State public utility commissions; independent power producers; electric utilities and others. There is no question that we need a new system to safeguard the integrity of our electric grid. My legislation would do this, using language that was agreed upon in the last Congress by House and Senate conferees for the energy bill.

During the last energy debate, efforts were made to address some of the more egregious behavior and attempted market manipulation by certain entities through legislation. While this area is obviously very complex, we need to address this issue if regulatory gaps truly do exist. I realize my attempt might not be perfect, but I wanted to initiate discussion on this very important topic if in fact regulatory agencies do need additional authority to police and monitor the industry.

My legislation will provide more information on prices of electricity and

transmission availability, outlaw the practice of round trip trading and prohibit reporting of false information for the purpose of manipulating price indices. In addition I've included authority the FERC has requested and that would increase civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Federal Power Act and accelerate the refund effective date to the date of filing of a complaint.

In the end it's about the consumer. It is my hope and vision that this legislation will produce a more reliable and efficient transmission system and that these improvements will result in more dependable and affordable electricity for all consumers.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.