A bill to reauthorize provisions in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 relating to Native Hawaiian low-income housing and Federal loan guarantees for Native Hawaiian housing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of an honorable gentleman from my home state of Connecticut, Mr. Ralph Nader, to submit for the Record a copy of testimony that he earlier submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing regarding the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Nominee Judge John Roberts.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,

thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the

nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the position of

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I

ask that this statement be made part of the printed hearing

record.

In 1994 I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee

on the nomination of Stephen G. Breyer by President Clinton

to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United

States. In that testimony I called attention to the

importance of balance in the way our laws handle the

challenges of corporate power in America.

I said:

``For our political economy, no issue is more consequential

than the distribution and impact of corporate power.

Historically, our country periodically has tried to redress

the imbalance between organized economic power and people

rights and remedies. From the agrarian populist revolt by the

farmers in the late 19th and early 20th century, to the rise

of the federal and state regulatory agencies, to the surging

trade unionism, to the opening of the courts for broader non-

property values to have their day, to the strengthening of

civil rights and civil liberties, consumer, women's and

environmental laws and institutions, corporate power was

partially disciplined by the rule of law.''

Today it is more important than ever for all Supreme Court

Justices and, in particular, the Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court to have the inclination and wisdom to realize that our

democracy is being eroded by many kinds of widely reported

systemic corporate excesses. Giant multinational corporations

have no allegiance to any country or community, and the

devastation and other injustices they visit upon

communities throughout the United States and around the

globe have outpaced the countervailing restraints that

should be the hallmark of government by, for and of the

people. Unfortunately, the structure and scope of these

hearings are not likely to devote a sufficient priority to

the corporate issues of our times.

In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``I hope we shall . . .

crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed

corporations, which dare already to challenge our government

to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our

country.'' Imagine his reaction to the corporate abuses of

Enron Corp, HealthSouth Corp., Tyco, WorldCom or Adelphia

Communications Corp to name only a few, along with the drug,

tobacco, banking, insurance, chemical and other toxic

industries. The corporate crime and greed of today tower over

the abuses of the ``moneyed corporations'' of Jefferson's

day. The economic power of giant corporations is augmented by

a flood of Political Action Committee (PAC) money and

other donations that shape the quality and quantity of debate

in our country and consequently drive our society to

imperatives that are increasingly more corporate than civic.

You will hear about Judge Roberts from several

perspectives, but it is safe to assume that questions and

testimony about Judge Roberts' views on corporate power and

the rule of law will be inadequate given the broad and

profound impact giant corporations have on our democracy. An

important procedural and substantive corollary is the

important role our civil justice system plays in expanding

the frontiers of justice and in giving individuals the

ability to hold ``wrongdoers'' accountable in a court of law.

``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one

commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice,'' said the famous

jurist, Learned Hand.

Unfortunately, powerholders, corporations and other

institutions which are supposed to be held accountable by the

civil justice system, are striving to weaken, limit and

override the province of juries and judges. Some companies,

led by insurers, have used expensive and focused media to

promote the view that civil juries are too costly and too

unpredictable. This narrow and short-sighted perspective is

contrary to the long-standing tenets of our democracy and in

particular the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution.

The civil jury system of the United States embraces a

fundamental precept of tested justice: ordinary citizens

applying their minds and values can and do reach decisions

on the facts in cases that often involve powerful

wrongdoers. This form of direct citizen participation in

the administration of justice was deemed indispensable by

this nation's founders and was considered non-negotiable

by the leaders of the American revolution against King

George III. But the civil jury is more than a process

toward bringing a grievance to resolution. The civil jury

is a pillar of our democracy necessary for the protection

of individuals against tyranny, repression and mayhem of

many kinds and for the deterrence of such injustices in

the future. Our civil jury institution is a voice for and

by the citizenry in setting standards for a just society.

Jury findings incorporated in appellate court decisions

contribute to one of the few authoritative reservoirs of

advancing standards of responsibility between the powerful

and the powerless--whether between companies and

consumers, workers, shareholders and community or between

officialdom and taxpayers or citizens in general. Knowing

the evolution of the common law and the civil jury

provides compelling and ennobling evidence of this

progression of justice. Chief Justice William Rehnquist

wrote, ``The founders of our Nation considered the right

of trial by jury in civil cases an important bulwark

against tyranny and corruption, a safeguard too precious

to be left to the whim of the sovereign, or, it might be

added, to that of the judiciary.''

As the hearing unfolds, I suggest that the members of the

Judiciary Committee devote some time to areas beyond those

that are traditionally the focus of witnesses and questioning

by Committee members and ask fundamental questions about the

views of Judge Roberts, a former corporate lawyer at Hogan &

Hartson, regarding corporate power and the civil justice

system.

In the spirit of expanding the criteria by which the

Committee and the public can measure Judge Robert's judicial

and civic philosophy, I offer the following questions for you

to pose to the nominee. Some of the questions are narrowly

focused and some are broad-gauged. But, in their totality

they constitute the broad kind of ``litmus test'' that should

be applied in selecting and confirming all judges. In short,

does the nominee, having met the threshold requirements of

competency, believe that the rule of law should be used to

broaden and deepen, procedurally and substantively, our

democracy--even if it means the rights of the giant

corporation or powerful interests must be circumscribed to

protect the rights of the individual citizen and of

our communities--rural or urban, large or small?

In pursuing its own line of questions, the Committee should

not let its exploration of the nominee's views be

artificially restricted. Judicial nominees have given two

reasons for refusing to answer questions, but these reasons

are contradictory. First, they say, if they publicly express

their views, it will compromise them if the issue comes

before the Court. Second, they say, judges do not decide

legal issues in a vacuum: they only decide a concrete dispute

in a specific adversarial context. Accordingly, some nominees

claim it's silly or inappropriate, for example, to say

whether they believe the Constitution protects the right to

abortion, because Justices don't decide cases by asking such

abstract questions. They face a particular statute,

challenged by a particular party directly affected in a

particular way, and the resolution of that dispute will turn

on all those particulars.

This second response has a degree of merit--and undercuts

the first reason for refusing to answer most questions.

Precisely because neither nominees nor the public can know in

what context issues will reach the Court (if at all), it is

not problematic for nominees to discuss their views. They

should not say how they would decide an actual pending case,

but, short of that, it is fine for them to discuss issues

because that in no way commits them to taking sides in any

actual dispute--such disputes are invariably context-

specific. For example, a nominee may be asked about the

doctrine that treats a corporation as a ``person'' entitled

to various constitutional rights. His or her thoughts on this

issue will not tell us what he or she will do if such an

issue is raised in a case before the Court. The latter may

depend on the nature of the corporation (non-profit? media?

multi-national?), the nature of the claimed right, and much

more.

Moreover, even if the nominee testifies that he or she

disapproves the doctrine, as a Justice the nominee may hold

that the question is settled law. Or if a nominee says that

he or she agrees with the doctrine, a new circumstance--or a

party making a new argument--may lead the nominee to hold

otherwise. Nothing a nominee says guarantees that he or she

will decide any case any particular way. Nothing that is said

has to be fixed in stone. Judges do give opinionated public

speeches, do they not?

It may be wondered whether, in light of the above, any

purpose is served by asking the nominee his views. The answer

is yes. It's no secret that nothing a nominee says binds

the nominee once he or she receives an office with life

tenure. Nominees can't and shouldn't be bound. But

especially with a nominee who has a limited public record,

the hearings provide some basis for gauging the nature and

quality of his ideas, about his philosophy of due process

for example. At any rate they have that potential--if

Senators do their job and do not accept a nominee's self-

serving refusal to answer questions.

At the outset, it would behoove the Committee to establish

the parameters the nominee will use in fashioning responses

to your questions by asking:

What criteria are you using to determine if you will

directly answer or not answer questions posed to you by

members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

If the Court has recently ruled on a matter, will you

provide the Committee with your views on the Court's ruling?

If a matter is long settled, will you provide the Committee

with your views on the Court's ruling?

Once this baseline has been established, the following

questions should shed light on nominee's approach to some

major issues of our day.

1. Lloyd Cutler, speaking as a prominent corporate

attorney, once said: ``There is one point I want to make

clear: we believe in the arguments that we make.'' Do you

believe the arguments you have made on behalf of your

corporate clients?

2. Do you believe limits on television station ownership

abridge the free speech rights of corporate broadcasters?

3. What is your view of the First Amendment rights of the

listeners being paramount to those of the broadcasters as

articulated by the Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC,

395 U. S. 367 (1969)?

4. Do you see a problem when corporations are treated as

equal participants, with every right to use their First

Amendment rights to dominate public policy debates such as

those that occur in state and local referenda?

5. Do you believe the Court should uphold state and

Congressional limits on corporate political expression in

order to equalize contributions to public debates?

6. Do you believe that a strict reading of the Constitution

provides for the treatment of corporations as ``persons''

under the law for purposes of equal protection, freedom of

speech or due process of law? And, if so, what in the

Constitution's text provides a basis for this belief?

7. Many observers complain that law firms representing

large corporations routinely abuse the discovery process in

order to delay and harass their opponents. Have you observed

that phenomenon? If so, what should be done about it?

8. In 1986, in Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util.

Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1 (1986) the Supreme Court (5 to 3)

struck down a state regulation as violating a utility

company's ``right of conscience'' under the First Amendment.

What makes the case particularly unsettling is its

disconnectedness to opinions past and future. As Justice

Rehnquist observed in his lengthy dissenting opinion in the

case, ``the two constitutional liberties most closely

analogous to the right to refrain from speaking--the Fifth

Amendment right to remain silent and the constitutional right

of privacy--have been denied to corporations based on their

corporate status.'' Do you think it makes sense to attribute

a right of conscience to a commercial corporation?

9. Would any trade agreement, such as GATT, NAFTA, or CAFTA

ever require Senate ratification as a treaty?

10. Does the President have complete discretion to

determine whether an international trade or other agreement

must be submitted to the Senate for two-thirds treaty

approval? If not, what are the criteria that determine when

an international agreement must be submitted to the Senate

for two-thirds treaty approval?

11. Are there limits on Congress' power to strip federal

courts of jurisdiction over a particular issue? If so, what

are such limits?

12. Do you believe victims of defective products that meet

federal standards should be limited from recovering damages

from the manufacturers of the defective products?

13. Do you believe Congress should federalize and pre-empt

state products liability common law in any or all sectors?

14. Plaintiffs' trial lawyers have been blamed by their

corporate critics for all sorts of problems with the economy

and

legal profession. Do you believe that those representing

injured persons in product liability and medical malpractice

cases are harming America?

15. So-called tort-reform is aimed at restricting the

amount of non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, a

party can receive. Are you concerned that this interferes

with the traditional role of juries and judges to find facts

and mete out appropriate justice?

16. Do you believe the use of the government contractor

defense should be limited in nonmilitary procurement? If so,

how?

17. Some people say the Ninth Amendment can play no

substantive role in protecting rights, that it's merely a

statement of principle or reminder of limited government.

Do you agree?

18. A number of legal scholars argue that the 11th

Amendment has been interpreted by the Court to shield states

from liability for wrongdoing in a way that blatantly

contravenes the original intention of the Amendment. Are you

familiar with that scholarship and do you find it persuasive?

19. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for a

contractual arbitration clause to contract away substantive

contract law, tort, or statutory rights? For instance, can an

arbitration clause require arbitration of a worker's Title

VII rights and at the same time limit the worker's

compensatory damages to $200,000? Can that same clause

require the loser to pay the winner's attorney's fees? Can

that clause require that the parties to arbitration bear

their own attorney's fees?

20. Describe the presumption against preemption of state

law. Does it apply in some or all instances where federal law

is said to preempt state law?

21. Is the presumption against preemption of state law (by

federal law) similar to the plain statement rule that demands

that Congress speak with unmistakable clarity if it wishes to

override the states' sovereign immunity? If the presumption

against preemption is not similar to the plain statement

rule, explain how it is different?

22. How is the presumption against preemption applied in

cases where federal regulatory law (regulating, for instance,

drugs, boats, pesticides, motor vehicles, and the like) is

said to preempt state tort law that provides monetary

remedies to compensate for injuries caused by a product that

the federal government regulates?

23. Do you believe Congress should pre-empt the state-law-

based medical malpractice system?

24. What are your views on the ``American rule'' as opposed

to the English rule under which the losing party in

litigation generally pays the winner's costs, including

attorney's fees?

25. What has been your reaction or views on Congressional

funding levels for federally funded legal services programs

over the last two decades? Should government be responsible

for funding representation for poor people in civil

litigation where important property or liberty interests are

at stake? Or should that be mainly or entirely a private

function?

26. Some scholars and judges believe that ``Originalism''

is the only principled method of constitutional

interpretation. Do you agree?

27. Do you believe that a declaration of war by Congress is

Constitutionally required for the United States to engage in

war?

28. Does a Congressional delegation of the war-making

discretion to the President in the form of a war resolution

meet the test of Article One, Section Eight of the

Constitution?

29. What level of equal protection scrutiny was applied in

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)?

30. What is the precedential effect of Bush v. Gore? In

other words, what kinds of equal protection claims does Bush

v. Gore control or apply to? After Bush v. Gore, may a

political entity (city, county, state) holding an election

use more than one type of voting methodology (paper ballots,

standard machines, punch cards, etc.) knowing that the error

rates (whether through undercounts or otherwise) are

different from one methodology to another?

31. Is there a need to amend our open government laws to

make the President subject to them in whole or in part? Would

such amendments be constitutional?

32. Do you believe arguments before the Supreme Court

should be televised in the way C-SP AN televises

Congressional deliberations?

33. In your view, is the Freedom of Information Act

functioning properly at this time? If not, what are the major

problems facing the Act?

34. In Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia

Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U S. 598 (2001)

case, the Court rejected the argument that a party that has

failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered

consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired

result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change

(the catalyst theory) in the defendant's conduct is entitled

to attorney's fees. Does the rejection of the catalyst theory

of fee recovery in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon decision

apply across-the-board to federal fee-shifting statutes? If

not, to what kinds of fee-shifting statutes is it likely to

apply and to what kinds is its application more doubtful?

35. Brian Wolfman, Director of the Public Citizen

Litigation Group notes, ``The Bush administration says that

Buckhannon applies to [Freedom of Information Act] FOIA

cases, even though Congress stated explicitly, when it

enacted FOIA, that fees should be available when FOIA cases

settle. The Bush Justice Department has consistently argued

to expand Buckhannon to every pro-consumer and civil rights

statute in every conceivable situation.'' What approach (or

approaches) to statutory construction of Congressional

enactment was evident in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon

decision? How would you describe the reliance on (or lack of

reliance on) legislative history in the majority's reasoning

in that case? Do you believe the Bush Justice Department is

applying the Buckhannon decision correctly?

36. From both a legal (constitutional) and practical

perspective, what is your view of the trend in the federal

judiciary toward releasing more of its opinions in

``unpublished'' form, i.e., where the relevant court accords

no precedential effect to the decision for other cases?

37. Should federal judges attend seminars which are funded

by private corporations (or by foundations that are funded by

such corporations) that have matters of interest to the

corporations before the courts?

38. Do you believe a government attorney, in a subordinate

position, should be forced (under penalty of discharge) to

work on a case or argue a position that he or she believes is

illegal, unconstitutional or unethical? Or should government

lawyers have a ``right of conscience'' like other

professionals?

39. What kinds of participation in civic life may federal

judges continue to be involved in once they assume their

judicial positions?

40. How many hours or what percent of their work time do

you think partners in major firms should devote to pro bono

work each year?

41. How many hours on average did you bill per year as a

partner and at what rates?

42. How many hours on average did you bill per year as an

associate?

43. What was the nature of your pro bono work and

approximately how much time per year did you devote to pro

bono work?

44. Corporate attorneys and legal scholars have written

books and articles decrying unethical or fraudulent billing

practices in large corporate law firms. An article in the

Summer 2001 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics titled

Gunderson Effect and Billable Mania: Trends in Overbilling

and the Effect of New Wages states that unethical billing

practices are ``a pervasive problem in law firms across the

country''--do you agree?

45. Did you ever observe unethical billing practices when

you were in private practice?

46. If so, what was the nature of and who were the

protagonists of such practices?

I hope these questions, whether asked orally or submitted

to the nominee in writing for response, spark a robust,

constructive debate between the Committee members and the

nominee. Such exchanges should provide the Senate and the

larger public with insights into how Judge John G. Roberts

will, if confirmed as Chief Justice, perform his duties.

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, 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.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Santorum, in introducing legislation to permanently extend and improve upon the Work Opportunity and the Welfare-to-Work tax credits. Last year, I was pleased to successfully add a permanent a extension of these credits to the Senate passed JOBS bill, which combined the credits and made certain improvements. When the expiring tax provisions were considered last year as part of the Working Families Tax Relief bill, I offered an amendment to combine both credits and make them permanent. While this provision was not retained in conference, I was successful in securing an extension of the current program through December 31, 2005. This extension expires at the end of this year so immediate action is needed to make these credits permanent and make several reforms in the programs to improve their effectiveness. These recurring lapses and extensions make administration of this credit burdensome both for the taxpaying employer, who cannot keep track of who is or isn't qualified, and for the IRS, which needs to ensure taxpayers are complying with the ever-shifting law.

Over the past decade, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, WOTC, and the Welfare-to Work, W-t-W, have helped over 2.2 million public assistance dependent individuals enter the workforce. Both of these important programs are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. These hiring tax incentives have clearly demonstrated their effectiveness in helping to level the job selection playing field for low-skilled individuals by providing employers with additional resources to help recruit, select, train and retain individuals with significant barriers to work. Many vulnerable individuals still need a boost in finding employment, and this is particularly critical during periods of high unemployment. The weak economy and rising unemployment give employers many more hiring options because of the larger pool of experienced laid-off workers. Without an extension of these programs, the task of transitioning from welfare-to-work will become even harder for individuals who reach their welfare eligibility ceiling.

Because of the costs involved in setting up and administering a WOTC/ W-t-W program, employers have established massive outreach programs to maximize the number of eligible persons in their hiring pool. The States, in turn, have steadily improved the programs through improved administration. WOTC has become an example of a true public-private partnership design to assist the most needy applicants. Without the additional resources provided by these hiring tax incentives, few employers would actively seek out this hard-to-employ population.

WOTC provides employers with a graduated tax credit equal to 25- percent of the first $6,000 in wages for eligible individuals working between 120 hours and 399 hours and a 40-percent tax credit on the first $6,000 in wages for those working over 400 hours. The W-t-W tax credit is geared toward long-term welfare recipients and provides a 35- percent tax credit on the first $10,000 in wages during the first year of employment and a 50-percent credit on the first $10,000 for those who stay on the job a second year.

In my own State of Montana, many businesses take advantage of this program, including large multinational firms and smaller family-owned businesses. Those who truly benefit from the WOTC/W-t-W program, however, are low-income families, under the Food Stamp Program, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, programs, and also low-income U.S. Veterans. In Montana, more than 1,000 people were certified as eligible under the WOTC program during an 18-month period, October 2001 through March 2003, including 476 Food Stamp recipients, 475 AFDC/TANF recipients, and 52 U.S. veterans.

The bill we are introducing provides for a permanent program extension of the two credits. After a decade of experience with WOTC and W-t-W, we know that employers do respond to these important hiring tax incentives. 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.

The bill also includes a proposal to simplify the programs by combining them into one credit and making the rules for computing the combined credits simpler. This would be accomplished 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 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. 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