Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act

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, the hurricanes of last summer brought new demands on all of our nation's rescue resources. The needs of children, particularly young children and their families, are unique and not a part of local and national recovery plans. Mental health, physical needs, day care, education, and family separation continue to be needs that for communities to address.

The National Center for Rural Early Childhood Learning Initiatives and the non-profit Save the Children, continue to lead the focused on the special needs of children. While assessing damages and recording destroyed facilities, the Rural Early Childhood center and Save the Children, with assistance from others, also developed a plan for future disasters.

Today I am introducing a Senate concurrent resolution that expresses the sense of the Senate that the Federal Emergency Management Agency should consider the unique needs of children and consider the recent experiences, suggestions and solutions of organizations and research centers. We ought to support the incorporation of child-specific needs and concerns into the National Response Plan. The Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, is cosponsoring this resolution. We invite all Senators to join us.

S. Con. Res. 94

Whereas major disasters resulting in Presidential disaster

declarations in the United States have increased from an

average of 38 per year in the 1980s, to 46 per year in the

1990s, to 52 per year during the first half of this decade;

Whereas the occurrence of major disasters in the United

States is expected to continue to increase in the foreseeable

future;

Whereas the number of people in the United States affected

by disasters each year is a staggering 2,000,000 to 3,000,000

as measured by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (even

outside of truly catastrophic events as occurred on the Gulf

Coast in 2005);

Whereas 5,192 children were reported missing or displaced

to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children as a

result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and it took 6 \1/2\

months to reunite the last child separated from her family;

Whereas the most serious of such cases were those 45

children arriving at shelters separated from parents or

guardians with no adult supervision and it took more than 1

month to resolve all of those cases;

Whereas 1,100 schools were closed immediately following

Hurricane Katrina and 372,000 schoolchildren were initially

unable to attend school in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast due

to the hurricane;

Whereas in Mississippi 7 percent and in Louisiana 21

percent of elementary schools and secondary schools remained

closed 6 months after Hurricane Katrina;

Whereas more than 400,000 children under the age of 5 live

in or have evacuated from counties or parishes that have been

declared disaster areas by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency;

Whereas the numbers of licensed child care facilities in

areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita declined by 4

percent (54 facilities) in Mississippi and by 25 percent (356

facilities) in Louisiana after the storms;

Whereas children are known to benefit from rapid mental

health programming following disasters to mitigate longer

term impacts;

Whereas the existing system of disaster management in the

United States is the purview of Federal, State, and local

government emergency management organizations and the

disaster management programs and activities of these

organizations are not mandated nor are able to fully respond

to the unique needs of children;

Whereas Federal, State, and local government emergency

management professionals lack the technical knowledge,

support, and contacts to address the unique needs of children

that need to be incorporated into such professionals'

disaster management programs and activities; and

Whereas existing legislative constraints on Federal

disaster response and recovery aid programs restrict disaster

officials from responding to the specific needs of children

in a disaster and there is no government liaison or program

concerning children's issues in disasters: Now, therefore, be

it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the needs of children and youth affected by major

disasters are unique and should be given special

consideration in planning, responding, and recovering to

major disasters; and

(2) the Federal Emergency Management Agency should consult

with appropriate child-focused non-governmental organizations

and public university national research centers with

experience in addressing the needs of children in major

disasters to address the needs of children and youth in

disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation,

including by--

(A) incorporating suggestions from such organizations on

children's issues into the National Response Plan;

(B) seeking the recommendations of such organizations on

how to address the needs of children in emergency shelters,

trailer parks, and transitional housing sites;

(C) jointly developing child-, family-, early childhood

service-, and school-focused disaster preparedness materials

to support understanding of the impact of disasters on

children and strategies to mitigate them; and

(D) jointly developing risk assessment tools for

communities to use in determining children's specific

disaster risks.

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