Storm Shelter Tax Relief Act

Mr. President, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus, I have the honor of chairing the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade. That is why I wish to take a few minutes to outline some of the issues I think are relevant to this important debate, about going to bat for workers under the trade adjustment program.

In my home State, about one out of six jobs depends on international trade. The trade jobs tend to pay better than the nontrade jobs. So I have said my philosophy about international trade is, what we ought to do is everything possible to grow things in Oregon and in the country, to make things in Oregon and across America, add value to them here, and ship them somewhere because this is an extraordinary opportunity we have in front of us in terms of expanding exports.

The fact is, the American brand--the brand that is attached to American goods--the exports we send all over the globe are something consumers worldwide want. That is my first point. More than 90 percent of the world's consumers live outside the United States--90 percent-- and they are all potential customers for the products we make in the United States. More customers for American products means American businesses have to make more products. To make more products, they go out and hire more workers. Hiring more workers to make more products to sell to more consumers is the upside of the trade debate we are starting today.

Dismantling trade barriers to American exports gives our businesses access to those new consumers. Doing that creates and supports good- paying jobs--jobs people can support a family on, with a family-wage job.

As I mentioned, trade-related jobs provide better benefits and pay than many of those jobs unrelated to international trade. That is why when we have an opportunity to open markets to American products and American exports we ought to take advantage of it.

Point No. 2 is that our successful efforts to open markets are undermined when foreign governments and foreign competitors cheat. I use that word specifically because cheating is exactly what engaging in unfair trade practices that work to undermine our producers and our innovators is all about. So a central component of our trade policy always has to be enforcement--enforcement of U.S. trade laws and global trade rules.

Senator Snowe, Senator Portman, Senator Blunt, Senator McCaskill, Senator Schumer, Senator Brown, and I have been focused specifically on stopping foreign suppliers from laundering their merchandise to evade U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws. These are the duties that are put in place to remedy the damage that unfairly traded imports cause to American producers. Those foreign trade cheats, especially those from China, have been found guilty of dumping their goods in our country. Instead of stopping the dumping or paying the appropriate duties, the Chinese goods are shipped into a country such as Korea where the goods get repacked into boxes that say ``Made in Korea'' in order to avoid the U.S. trade remedy laws.

All of this has been occurring under the sleepy eyes--the sleepy eyes--of our customs agency. Fortunately, with bipartisan support, the Senate is positioned to act on this matter and address the issue. It will not come a minute too soon.

I was stunned when the staff of my Subcommittee on International Trade basically set up a sting operation, set up a dummy company, and we were amazed at the number of firms, particularly from China, that basically said: Look, we are plenty interested in figuring out how to get around American trade laws.

So these foreign trade cheats are out there. They are looking for ways to exploit the fact that the customs agency has not been tough, has not been relentless, particularly not with respect to protecting our manufacturers.

So point No. 2 is to make sure in the days ahead we put in place a stronger response to trade cheating, where cheats from China and other countries literally launder their merchandise, stamp it as coming from somewhere else, in order to avoid our trade laws.

The third point speaks to the bill we discuss today, and especially to the valuable Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment that I hope we will be voting on shortly. America's ability to compete in the global economy rests on opening foreign markets, enforcing the trade rules, and preparing our workforce--the American workforce, the workforce on which American businesses depend--to be globally competitive for the jobs of tomorrow.

That is what the TAA, trade adjustment assistance, Program is all about. Just as over 90 percent of the world's consumers live outside the United States, so does over 90 percent of the world's workers. Although we have the most productive, innovative workforce in the world, sometimes a foreign producer finds a way to do something better or produce something more efficiently than an American one. The result is, we can have Americans losing jobs through no fault of their own.

So the Congress decided long ago that the best way to respond to global competition was to meet it head on, to meet it directly, and that is what a trade agenda with a robust Trade Adjustment Assistance Program does.

Trade adjustment assistance throws a lifeline to the workers who lose their jobs, and to their families, because we have been open, we have been free, we have been expansionist in the area of trade, particularly when it comes to creating exports. Trade adjustment assistance provides American workers with an opportunity to acquire the skills they need to not just become reemployed but to help American businesses better compete in the global marketplace while those families make their way back to the American economy, where they can earn a wage at which they can support their families.

Trade adjustment assistance is a pretty modest program. The lifeline that is thrown to these workers is modest--just a few hundred dollars a week on average--and the job training that is provided to those workers is typically provided through existing infrastructure such as our community colleges. Trade adjustment assistance provides just enough assistance for resourceful and thrifty and industrious workers to rebound from a trade-related job loss. That, in effect, is what I hope we can start looking at programs such as trade adjustment assistance as being.

What we want these programs to be all about is to be something of a trampoline, where, in effect, people can get a modest amount of assistance, and through that modest amount of assistance be in a position to bounce back to the American economy with skills that have been improved and be in a position to again make a good wage at a company that can be involved in areas such as exports and productivity and innovation-driven services.

For much of the last half of the century, the United States vigorously promoted an open and global economy. As a result, our country launched an effort to become the largest, most dynamic market in the world. Today that global market is more competitive than ever before. The rise of China and India and other emerging markets,

such as Brazil and Russia, provide extraordinary opportunities to our innovators and our producers. But we do not get to be the top economy as a result of some kind of entitlement program. We have to constantly work at it. We have to constantly work at the task of making more innovative and more productive goods and services.

Together, Federal Government officials, businesses, and workers have the opportunity to seize the possibilities that a global economy provides and also overcome its challenges. Certainly, it is more important than ever to do that in the face of growing foreign competition. That means joining again now, on a bipartisan basis, to support trade adjustment assistance.

I would just like to note, having been involved in these issues since I came to the Senate, trade adjustment assistance has historically been a bipartisan program. It has been a program where the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, consistently said we can look at trade, we can look at exports as a vehicle for more family-wage jobs in our country--making things here, growing things here, adding value to them here, and shipping them somewhere. But certainly, in an ever-changing world, we are going to see some of our workers needing the opportunities to upgrade their skills that trade adjustment assistance allows.

So I very much hope my colleagues will support the Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment. It has my full support. It is very much in the spirit of the bipartisan work that has been done on trade adjustment assistance in the past.

Mr. President, I see other colleagues waiting to speak, and with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just before he leaves the floor, let me tell Senator Sessions how much I appreciate the kind words and enjoy working with him. We serve on the Budget Committee together and talk often about economic issues. I wish to tell my colleague that I look forward to working with him on tax and budget issues in the days ahead especially.

Amendment No. 626

Mr. President, what I would like to do now is take just a couple minutes to talk about the amendment offered by the distinguished Republican leader, Senator McConnell, to extend trade promotion authority--what is known as TPA--for 2 years.

I am certainly interested in working with the leader. Certainly, Chairman Baucus has made it very clear that he wants to continue to work on this issue. But I would oppose the McConnell amendment this afternoon, and I want to outline specifically why.

The last time Congress passed trade promotion authority was in 2002, essentially almost one decade ago. The McConnell amendment would simply continue Congress's instructions that were formulated back then, as I said, almost one decade ago. But the fact is, the American economy has changed dramatically since TPA was adopted last, and the overseas trade barriers have changed dramatically. Yet the McConnell amendment simply hasn't kept up with the times. What I wish to do is outline a few examples of areas where we face very different economic challenges.

I would also like to say we talked about this very briefly in the Senate Finance Committee. It was raised by the ranking minority member on our subcommittee, Senator Thune. So it is clear there is an interest in the Finance Committee in working on this issue.

Trade promotion authority is a hugely important and complicated issue. When it was considered the last time, there were extensive hearings in the Finance Committee. Many amendments were authored. There was considerable time devoted to it. That has not been the case at all with respect to reauthorization, and it is why, in particular, I wish to make sure that when the Congress next deals with trade promotion authority, we deal with some of the most important challenges. I am going to outline a few of those.

Digital goods and services would be of special concern that we have looked at in our community. Digital goods, for an example, would be software. Digital services would highlight cloud computing. I know it is something that has been of great interest in Minnesota. It is all about the Internet playing an increasing role in the American and the global economy. It is a platform for global commerce.

I believe the Internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st century. It is

the shipping lane for goods and services, and the 2002 version of trade promotion authority doesn't have the kinds of policies that are necessary to address today's challenges that affect our ability to export American goods and digital services.

A second example would be the question of labor and environmental standards with respect to our trade goals and intellectual property protection for pharmaceutical drugs.

In May of 2007, congressional Democrats and Republicans got together, on a bipartisan basis, to update trade goals with respect to key issues such as labor and the environment and intellectual property protection as it related to pharmaceutical drugs and therapies. These agreements that were entered into in 2007 aren't reflected in the 2002 version of trade promotion authority. So extending the 2002 version of trade promotion authority is another area where, if we simply support the McConnell amendment this afternoon, trade policy has not kept up with the times.

Finally, I would just like to mention China. The fact is, in 2002, we had a relatively short experience with China at the World Trade Organization and, more than ever before, state-owned enterprises play a role in global commerce, particularly given the rise of China. I think all of us agree our trade agenda ought to include promoting discipline so state-owned enterprises do not undermine the American private sector. That requires reconsidering, again, the provisions found in the 2002 version of trade promotion authority.

What it comes down to is that this issue deserves more consideration than a floor amendment with just a modest number of Senators even being aware of the history and the issues and the complexity of the issues. In fact, it would be fair to say that a significant number of Senators on both sides of the aisle weren't even a member of this body back when trade promotion was considered last in 2002.

So what it comes down to for me is, American trade policy is too important to construct on the back of a galloping horse. That, in my view, would be what the Senate would be doing if it simply adopted the McConnell amendment. Chairman Baucus is opposed to this amendment. He, such as myself, has made it clear he is interested in working with colleagues on a bipartisan basis on this issue, and it is an important part of the role of both the executive branch and the Congress in terms of looking at trade policy, and it is particularly important right now when, in a host of areas--I will give another example.

I cited already digital goods and environmental labor standards and state-owned enterprises. We had a very valuable hearing in the Subcommittee on Trade Finance on fishing issues, which are also playing an increasingly important global role in trade agreements and trade policy. That also was not part of any discussion back in 2002. Those issues and others need to be aired. They ought to be aired on a bipartisan basis.

I thought Senator Thune, when we were in the Finance Committee, was right to ask about this issue. There is going to be an opportunity in the days ahead to work on this. Chairman Baucus has made it clear that he wants to work with colleagues on a bipartisan basis on trade promotion authority. I do as well. I already made that pledge to the ranking member of our subcommittee, Senator Thune, who has been very easy to work with on a host of these trade issues. He has made some particularly important points with respect to digital goods and services and the opportunity for our high-tech sector--wrote a good article on it just a couple days ago.

Suffice it to say, there is a lot of interest on our side of the aisle in working on this issue. But I would urge colleagues to resist the McConnell amendment this afternoon when it comes up for a vote for the reasons I have outlined, and there will be time for the kind of debate on trade promotion that I think is appropriate, one that reflects the opportunities and challenges of an economy in 2011 that is very different than the one we were addressing when we last did trade promotion authority in 2002.

In an effort to come up with a unanimous consent agreement that can resolve the question of the upcoming votes, I would just say to Senators on both sides of the aisle that certainly the next hour would be a very good time for Senators who would like to speak on the Casey- Brown-Baucus amendment or the McConnell amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to respond very briefly to my friend from Missouri, and then I know the Senator from California is here, and she wishes to speak for about 10 minutes. I am going to be very brief.

First, I want to thank Senator Blunt for working with us in a bipartisan way. He played a key role in trying to advance this issue and worked very closely with all of us in the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus, myself, and others.

The Senator from Missouri is absolutely right with respect to the tariff issue. The fact is, the American market is open. We essentially have some of the lowest tariffs around. In many of the markets around the world--and certainly in a number of areas with these three countries--we face much higher tariffs. So if we come up with an effort to, in effect, level the playing field, that means American companies, particularly American exporters, benefit more than do the folks around the world. So I think the point the Senator from Missouri has made is a very valid one.

I also want to thank him for his comment with respect to the trade cheats. We are going to have further discussions with respect to TPA, and I see the distinguished ranking minority member. When we talked about this in committee, I made it very clear I intend to keep working with Senator Hatch and Senator Thune, who is the ranking member of the subcommittee. The challenge is to make sure TPA keeps up with the times. Because if we just reauthorize in 2011 TPA of 2002, we are not going to be dealing with digital goods and digital services, we are not going to be dealing with State-run enterprises, we are not going to be dealing with labor and environmental issues. That is why we are going to have to continue that work in a bipartisan way.

Madam President, Senator Boxer was going to speak next. Then I understand Senator Hatch wants to discuss his amendment, and I intend to remain for that.

With that, I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? Because 5 o'clock is coming.

I thank my colleague. Certainly, when I am done, the Senator is next to continue his comments.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending McConnell amendment No. 626 be modified with the DeMint language which is at the desk; and Senator Hatch or his designee then be recognized to offer amendment No. 641; that the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees for debate on the McConnell amendment, as modified; that at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following judicial nominations: Calendar Nos. 169 and 170; that there be up to 15 minutes of debate on the nominations, equally divided, in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, Calendar No. 169 be confirmed and the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 170; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session; that upon disposition of the judicial nominations, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the McConnell amendment, as modified; that there be no amendments, points of order or motions in order to the McConnell amendment prior to the vote on the amendment, other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that the amendment not be divisible and it be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I wish to talk about an amendment I intend to offer linking TAA expansion to enactment of the three pending free-trade agreements.

I will send an amendment to the desk in the near future for consideration. This amendment makes the effective date for additional TAA funding contingent upon the enactment of our free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

It is unfortunate this amendment is necessary. Supporters of this trade adjustment assistance bill tell us that TAA is a necessary precondition to submission of our pending free-trade agreements--a necessary precondition of the President. The President and his supporters say if TAA does not pass, the free-trade agreements will never be sent to Congress for our consideration.

I find this logic disturbing. It basically boils down to this: Spend more taxpayer money on one of our pet trade priorities or we will refuse to allow Congress to vote on trade agreements that we know will create jobs. The administration has said it will create 250,000 new jobs. By the way, at a time when unemployment is over 9 percent, I simply can't understand why the President continues to hold up these FTAs and their consideration.

Even today, we don't know if the President will actually send the FTAs to Congress if we pass TAA. So my amendment is very simple. It allows TAA to be approved, but it will only go into effect once the President submits the trade agreements to Congress, they are all approved, and when they are signed into law.

To me, this amendment is about fundamental fairness. If we are to meet the President's demands, we can at least ensure our top priorities are addressed as well.

I think it is worth taking a moment to review how we got here.

In December 2010, the President announced he had finally reached agreement with South Korea to renegotiate parts of that trade agreement. Touting the benefits of these changes, the President seemed poised to immediately begin working with Congress

toward its quick implementation; that is, the implementation of the Korean Free Trade Agreement.

In February, Senator McConnell and I wrote to the President commending him for his strong support for the South Korea agreement but also expressing disappointment we did not see the same level of commitment to our pending free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama. At that time, we warned that further delay would mean lost market share and alienation of key Latin American allies. We also made it clear each agreement would receive broad bipartisan support once the President submitted them to Congress for approval.

Three days later, the President responded when Ambassador Kirk testified before the Ways and Means Committee that the President had directed him to immediately intensify engagement with Colombia and Panama to resolve the administration's outstanding issues with these two agreements.

Senator Baucus and I welcomed that development when we wrote to Ambassador Kirk on February 14 and asked that he be prepared to provide testimony regarding what additional steps the administration believed Colombia and Panama should take and to provide a clear and expeditious timeline for moving both agreements through Congress.

Shortly thereafter, in early March, Ambassador Kirk notified Congress the administration was ready to begin technical work on the South Korea implementing bill with the intent to seek approval in the spring of this year. Senator Baucus and I welcomed this development but again called for a specific timeline for resolution of the outstanding issues with Colombia and Panama.

During our March 9 hearing on the administration's trade agenda, I made it clear that consideration of the South Korea agreement, without a clear path for the Colombia and Panama agreements, was simply not acceptable and that should the President ignore the will of Congress and send the Korea agreement without Colombia and Panama, I would do everything I could to make sure those two agreements were considered at the same time as Korea.

Shortly thereafter, in early April, the President finally took steps to fully engage with the Government of Colombia, announcing an agreement on a labor action plan that would enable the administration to begin working with Colombia to achieve benchmarks that, if met, would then enable the President to submit the agreement to Congress. A few weeks later, Panama met one of President Obama's preconditions for consideration of their FTA when they approved a tax information exchange agreement and finalized additional modifications to Panama's labor laws.

So there we stood in May, on the cusp of victory. Months of intense congressional pressure appeared to have finally resulted in an opportunity for Congress to consider our trade agreements with these important allies. But alas, it was not to be.

I would be happy to yield, without losing my right to the floor.

Madam President, on the cusp of victory, the President sacrificed it by demanding more government spending on a controversial domestic training program.

After first asking Colombia, Panama and South Korea to take unprecedented steps to solve our President's concerns with each agreement, the administration held a press conference and, with no prior cngressional consultation or notice, announced that they would not submit our pending trade agreements to Congress unless Congress first agreed to continue funding a domestic spending program at near stimulus levels.

This was an astounding development. Instead of working with Congress to seek approval of these job-creating trade agreements the President chose to try and force Congress to agree to additional domestic spending first. In an opinion editorial, the Wall Street Journal called this move ``extortion.''

Weeks of intense negotiations followed between the White House, Senator Baucus and Chairman Camp to develop a package that would expand and renew trade adjustment assistance through 2014.

Meanwhile, committee staff worked with the White House to prepare the implementing legislation for quick congressional consideration. It appeared that we were once again close to successfully considering these important trade agreements.

But yet again, it was not meant to be. Upon reaching an agreement on the substance of a trade adjustment assistance package with Chairman Camp the White House again changed course, turning its back on a willing Congress and instead trying to force through consideration of trade adjustment assistance by including it in the implementing bill for the South Korea FTA.

And, once again, this was done with virtually no notice or consultation with Congress.

The reaction by the Republican caucus was predictable. We fought the administration's efforts to abuse trade promotion authority for its own narrow purposes and pushed for consideration of trade adjustment assistance on its own merits.

Our position was made clear in a letter--signed by every Republican member of the Finance Committee--to the President, in which we expressed our united opposition to inclusion of expanded trade adjustment assistance in an implementing bill submitted to Congress under trade promotion authority.

The administration ignored our concerns, and pushed forward on a partisan path to force a vote in the Senate Finance Committee.

As a result, while the implementing legislation for the Colombia bill and Panama bills received strong bipartisan support, the South Korea implementing bill moved through committee on a strict party line vote-- the first time a trade agreement has done so in over 25 years.

The administration then vowed to move forward on this path within days.

After that we heard remarkably little from the administration about their intentions regarding these trade agreements. Until August, of course, when the President repeatedly called upon Congress to take the agreements up ``right now'' to help create jobs.

This hollow call for action typifies the President's approach to the trade agenda. By calling upon Congress to act, he appears to be embracing the agreements and pushing for their quick approval. But, like so many of the President's trade initiatives his words do not match his deeds.

In reality, Congress cannot take up these agreements ``right now.'' President Obama is relying upon a trade law called trade promotion authority to protect each of these agreements from being blocked or amended by Congress.

In order to take advantage of this statutory authority, it is not Congress but the President who must take the first step and submit each agreement for consideration. If the President does not submit them, Congress cannot act under trade promotion authority.

The President and his team know this. In fact, here is a chart which outlines the TPA process called ``How A Trade Agreement Moves Through Congress Under TPA.''

This was taken directly from the Web site of the Office of the United States Trade Representative. It clearly shows Congress cannot act until the President submits the agreements.

But why take responsibility for moving the agreements when it's much easier to blame their continued delay on Congress? The fact is the President wants all the benefits of trade promotion authority but none of the responsibility.

Once they were called out on the mismatch between their words and deeds, the administration finally reined in their rhetoric but provided little guidance as to what their actual plans are.

In the meantime, Republicans continued to push for consideration of the three pending FTAs. Back in July, a group of Republican Senators signed a letter vowing to help the administration achieve its objective of gaining approval of trade adjustment assistance in exchange for submitting the FTAs. Despite a clear path forward the President remains silent to this day.

As the President continues to delay, our country cedes each of these markets to our foreign competitors. Our economy and our workers are suffering under horrific levels of unemployment--almost one in ten American workers is out of a job under this administration. We can't afford to throw away any opportunity to create jobs. Yet this is precisely what the President is doing.

While our economy remains troubled, and while the rest of the world watches in bewilderment as the United States lets other countries take over our export markets, we hear nothing but silence from the President.

A case in point: the European Union's exports to South Korea increased almost 45 percent in the first 20 days since that agreement went into force on July 1. Their share of Korea's import market increased from 9.5 percent to 10.3 percent in just 3 weeks.

Meanwhile, the U.S. share of Korea's import market dropped from 10.5 percent to 8.4 percent. Unless we act soon, these trends are likely to continue.

In an open letter to the President and Congress, over 120 food groups and companies wrote that ``if there is any doubt about the seriousness of the problem for U.S. agricultural exports, one need only consider the damage that has already been done by the delay in implementing the Colombia FTA.

``Argentina and Brazil have negotiated trade agreements . . . with Colombia that have given them preferential access . . . as a result, U.S.-produced corn, wheat and soybeans have been hit hard, with the combined share of Colombia's imports for these products falling to 28 percent from 78 percent since 2008.''

On August 15, 2011, an agreement between Canada and Colombia entered into force, which will only make the problem worse for U.S. exporters.

I appreciate the President's goal of doubling exports. Having goals is great. But we all know that, if you don't do the work or take action, goals become little more than false hope--they never become reality.

The President and his cabinet admit that these agreements are key to their goal of doubling exports. Yet the action necessary to reach that goal, submission of the agreements, still remains in the distant future. Instead, we watch the days slip by, and with each day our overseas markets erode.

The fact is that each of these agreements is critically important to our economy. For my home State of Utah and for workers across the country they mean more opportunity and jobs.

The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that U.S. workers lose $8 million in wages and benefits every day these agreements are delayed.

I for one stand ready to continue to fight for their consideration and approval. We have come a long way since January of this year, but we are not done yet.

I hope the President will heed my call and submit these agreements to Congress so we can approve them. But history has shown that this President won't act unless he is forced to. This amendment I am offering will continue to put pressure on him to act and to act soon.

The time for dithering and deliberation is over. Let's adopt this amendment and ensure that our work in moving TAA forward leads to the promised result--submission of the three pending free trade agreements by the President and their quick enactment in to law.

Amendment No. 641 to Amendment No. 633

Madam President, I send amendment No. 641 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Madam President, I am prepared to proceed.

Mr. President, being from Oklahoma, I can remember back in the days when they called Oklahoma, southern Kansas, northern Texas, and southwestern Missouri tornado alley. I say to my good friend from Oregon that I have been in aviation for many years. I know people who won't even fly airplanes through what we call tornado alley. But by now I think we know that tornadoes are a daily threat to Americans each spring as severe weather rolls across the country. In the past 30 years, over 34,000 tornadoes have touched down somewhere in the country, which means that one touches down, on average, every 8 hours of each day. This chart right here shows that each one of these little green dots represents a tornado.

As we all witnessed once again this spring, many of these tornadoes grow into very voracious and dangerous storms that bring significant harm to property and life. This year, 57 such tornadoes struck 14 States and claimed 550 lives. Alabama was the hardest hit. I can remember when Oklahoma was ranked as the hardest hit. They had over 240 killed. Missouri also suffered heavily with the loss of 157 people in Joplin. I say to my friend from Missouri, who is on the floor, I was up in Joplin right after that happened, down close to the Oklahoma border. It is something you have to witness before you understand it. In my State of Oklahoma where we have more than our fair share of violent tornadoes, this spring's storms resulted in the death of 14 people and the injury of many others. Until you have this happen, and you go on site, which I always make it a point to do--after each tornado in Oklahoma, you go down and talk to the people. You think of little kids looking for their toys and this type of thing, but they are gone and gone for good.

While this year has seen a large number of fatal tornadoes, they are a nationwide threat each spring. Since 1980, 734 tornadoes have claimed 2,462 lives in at least 37 different States, including 126 in my State of Oklahoma. Unfortunately, many of these lost lives

could have been avoided had storm shelters been more widely used.

In the past few months, a number of Oklahomans have asked me if there is a Federal program that promotes the installation of tornado storm shelters. They observed that those individuals who have these storm shelters live through it. They may lose their property, but they live through it. So they think, Well, government gets involved in all of these programs; what are they going to do to help us encourage people to build storm shelters? When I looked into it, I came up emptyhanded despite the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars are obligated each year to mitigate the effects of natural disasters.

Since death is one of the worst effects of natural disasters, one would think tornado storm shelters, which are the safest way to ride out tornadoes, would be a high priority, but only limited funds have been made available in the past, and it has been sporadic and poorly allocated. Most of the funds have been made available through FEMA's Hazardous Mitigation Grant Program, which is a mandatory program that allocates funds to States to help them better prepare for future disasters. States are able to direct some of this money to residential storm shelter construction, but to do this they have to go through a lot of hoops--through a lengthy process of coordinating a program with FEMA. Needless to say, it is a bureaucratic nightmare and hugely expensive.

Oklahoma did this after the devastating tornadoes of May 3, 1999. Fifty people died and many others were injured that day. As the recovery effort took hold, it became clear to public leaders that staggeringly few Oklahomans had storm shelters accessible for their homes. Because of this, Oklahoma's Department of Emergency Management worked with FEMA to create a temporary rebate program to encourage individuals to install storm shelters in their homes. The rebate was worth $2,000, and the funding cap was set at $6 million.

Unfortunately, the program didn't perform as well as they would have liked. It was a popular program and funding depleted quickly. But because of the rebate amount, only 3,000 homeowners were able to take advantage of the program, despite its $6 million funding level. We are talking about in the State of Oklahoma.

Furthermore, because this program was run through FEMA, it had a lot of paperwork requirements and was time consuming for the State to actually formalize. The ultimate decision of who received the rebate rested with FEMA and the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management and they decided who received the rebate and who did not. If you ask me, that is a pretty expensive, poorly designed program, but that is generally the way FEMA structures these programs when States go to the trouble of requesting them. All told, FEMA's sporadic Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for residential storm shelters has supported the construction of only 15,000 storm shelters at a staggering cost of $35 million. That is $2,000 for each storm shelter.

A different approach is needed to encourage a wider group of people to install tornado storm shelters. This would help mitigate the loss of life during tornadoes. To give people the opportunity--I have 20 kids and grandkids. My first concern every time I hear of a tornado coming is for them. That is why we have introduced this bill called the Storm Shelter Tax Relief Act. It provides a tax deduction of up to $2,500 to any individual who installs a qualified storm shelter. The cost of this deduction is fully offset, which I will explain in a minute, where it is coming from, and there are reductions in other areas of spending.

First, the deduction can be claimed by any taxpayer. If someone in Oklahoma, Kentucky, or Tennessee decides they need a storm shelter at their house, they can pay to have one installed and then claim the incentive by deducting up to $2,500 from their income when they file their taxes. Claiming this incentive would not require dealing with a big bureaucracy. One doesn't have to fill out the forms. One does not have to go through all the redtape. That is one of the reasons people don't do it under the existing programs. As I said before, previous programs that have been administered through FEMA place the power of the shelter incentive into the hands of an agency and not a family, not individuals. The agency then decides who does and does not receive the incentive. I think it is best when this middleman can be avoided, and a tax deduction does that. The Tax Code is blind and provides the incentive to anyone who decides in their best judgment that they need a storm shelter.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, the tax deduction is a better allocation of scarce taxpayer resources. A rebate that covers a large portion of a shelter's cost, as the Oklahoma program did, can foster moral hazard. What I mean is that when free money is on the table, people generally take it. In this case, people may take the rebate to buy a storm shelter because it is free, not because it is what they need. A tax deduction doesn't allow this because the actual incentive is much lower in value. No one is going to go out and spend $2,000 or more on a storm shelter because they get to write that amount off of their taxable income. Nobody does that. A rational individual would only go out to buy a shelter if they know they need one and then it has the added benefit of being deducted from their income, so it is a much better way of approaching it. On the aggregate level, this allows a lot more people to get the incentive at the same cost compared to the rebate programs that have been used in the past. A tax deduction provides a nudge to taxpayers to take practical steps to stay safe in areas where tornadoes are common. It is a commonsense approach and a better way to use taxpayer resources.

Further, this proposal's $41 million cost is fully paid for by rescinding funds authorized for storm shelter construction grants through the programs administered through HUD. In other words, we are doing this program and providing countless more shelters at a cost that would merely mean a tax deduction, and it is going to have a lot more people participating in the program. This means that existing unspent HUD funds that are duplicative of other FEMA spending will be redirected to a more effective policy in order to accomplish the same goal: Encourage the installation of more storm shelters to save lives from deadly tornadoes.

Many may wonder why this is something the Federal Government should be doing. In reality, this falls squarely within the purpose of the hazard mitigation priorities of the Federal Government. FEMA defines hazardous mitigation as ``any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event.'' HMGP regulations state that projects ``retrofitting structures . . . to minimize damages from high winds, earthquake, flood, wildfire, or other natural hazards'' are eligible for the expenditure of program dollars. The main goal of all this spending is to reduce the likelihood of losses of life and property, and retrofitting buildings to lesson the likelihood of damage caused by tornadoes is an eligible expense. That is what this tax deduction does.

Furthermore, the threat of deadly and dangerous tornadoes stretches far across the Nation. We saw the first map, but this map shows it is not just the tornado alley I referred to right here. With the exception of mountainous areas here, the danger zone is all across America. Not surprisingly, Oklahoma is right in the center. When we look at where deadly tornadoes have occurred during the past 30 years, it is spread across the entire eastern half of the country. All the States in red have had at least one deadly tornado every other year since 1980, and most of them have had even more. This may be surprising, but the threat is real. It needs to be addressed. More tornado storm shelters need to be constructed around the country and Federal policies encouraging this need to be changed. That is why we are introducing the Storm Shelter Tax Relief Act. The number of this bill, I say to my colleagues, is S. 1583. It was introduced today. I think those of us who have lived in these tornado-prone areas--I can tell stories about tornadoes picking up a horse and replacing it, dropping it someplace. In my personal experience, my wife was after me about 50 years ago when we had a place up in the country--we still have the same place--and I had a red Jeep. That

red Jeep was one we had for a long time. She said, How come you don't have that insured? I said, What could happen to a red Jeep in the middle of the country in Oklahoma? Well, a tornado came along, picked up a tree and dropped it right on top of my red Jeep. It cut it in half. So they are totally unpredictable.

I can tell more stories about Moore, OK, when we had our 1999 tornado where everything was devastated on one side of the street and nothing was touched on the other side of the street.

It is an art to understanding where these are coming from. We now have developed that art. There is not a person who could be in the path of a tornado who doesn't have the facilities and the resources to see what is out there and where it is coming. What they don't have is a way, if it is unavoidable, to protect themselves if it hits them. The obvious answer is a storm shelter.

I appreciate the Senator from Missouri, who is going to speak next, cosponsoring this bill. We would like to have more cosponsors. We have every intention of getting this passed.

With that, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, first, I want to say thank you to the leadership on this bill. This trade adjustment assistance is so critical. When we talk about creating jobs, we also want to talk about retraining those who need, in this century, the new kinds of training it takes to keep up in this economy and this world economy. So I want to thank them for their leadership.

Jobs and Deficit Reduction

Madam President, I want to talk about jobs and deficit reduction. The good news on this front is that President Obama has presented to the Nation both a jobs plan and a deficit reduction plan. He has shown the Nation, through this plan, that while we must cut the deficit and the debt in the long term, we have to focus on jobs in the short term. His plan ensures that middle-class Americans get the jobs and the opportunities they need to continue to move ahead. It also makes sure we have a fair tax system in place so everyone pays his or her own fair share--not too much, not too little, but fair. So this approach is welcome.

I will tell you why I welcome it. Because the approach outlined by President Obama--deficit and debt reduction, investments in jobs--was the same vision that worked before when Bill Clinton was the President. I had the honor of being here in this body to support those policies. People forget that when Bill Clinton became President, there were deficits and debt as far as the eye could see, and this country was going on the wrong path. What he did was to make sure everyone paid his or her own fair share so we had the revenues we needed to make the investments we needed to create the jobs we needed.

In those years, the investments were in high-tech and biotech, and we really broke through on the global scene. Madam President, 23 million jobs were created and deficits were turned into surpluses. I remember looking back at the record. Some of my Republican colleagues who are still here today said: The Clinton approach is going to lead to the worst deficits, no job creation. They were incorrect.

We lived through it, and we know that vision of cutting spending on what does not work, increasing spending on investments, everyone paying their fair share--all that turned into prosperity, 23 million jobs. What perplexes me is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to go back to the Bush years, trickledown economics, more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, no investments, so we even lose funding for our teachers, our firefighters, our nurses, and even our transportation stakeholders.

I am so grateful we passed an extension of the highway bill for 6 months. But, believe me, we face perils ahead because the House cuts that bill by a third, and we have to make sure that does not happen because 1.8 million jobs are at stake.

So I am perplexed that my Republican friends only evidence compassion and concern for the millionaires and the billionaires, but not for the middle class. Their compassion for the wealthiest is overwhelming. Their expressions of concern for billionaires--mind boggling. They call them the job creators, even though they are not the ones creating the jobs. The jobs are being created, if they are at all, by the way, by the small businesspeople. For 64 percent of new jobs, the creation comes from small business. They do not earn a million dollars. No way. So they call millionaires and billionaires job creators, which they are not, and they cry bitter tears that we might ask a millionaire or a billionaire to pay a fair share.

When I was young--and maybe I shouldn't tell the truth because this is going to date me--there was a show on television called ``Dragnet.'' The star of it was Joe Friday. Joe Friday used to say: ``Just the facts.'' So let's look at just the facts. Let's look at the facts. Why are my Republican friends defending the wealthiest among us? Since 1995, the wealthiest 400 Americans have seen their tax rates fall by 40 percent, while their average income has quadrupled. Let me say that again. The wealthiest 400 families saw their income go up by four times and their tax rates went down by 40 percent. Why do they have to cry for that situation? Why the tears?

Here is another fact and this is amazing. The wealthiest 400 families are worth more than 50 percent of American families. Let me say that again. The wealthiest 400 families in America are worth more than 50 percent of America's families. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont brought that fact to us. Why the tears for those 400 families?

One of those people, Warren Buffett, came forward. Bless his heart. He said his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's. His effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's. Why are we crying for people who earn millions and billions and pay a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries? I thank Warren Buffett for coming forward and other millionaires and billionaires have come forward and basically underscored that. Here is what he said:

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a

billionaire-friendly government. It's time for our government

to get serious about shared sacrifice.

I think he is right. Why should a millionaire or billionaire pay an effective lower tax rate than firefighters who risk their lives every day, than nurses who save lives every day, than their own assistants and secretaries who are so important in running their enterprises? Our President Obama has suggested millionaires and billionaires pay the same effective tax rate as their employees. That should be embraced, not attacked as class warfare.

I ask, is it class warfare to say to a millionaire or a billionaire they should pay the same effective tax rate as their secretary or is that just the moral thing to do? It is the moral thing to do. Is it the fair thing to do? It is the fair thing to do. Our country needs everyone to help us as we tackle the deficit. So why the tears? Why the tears? These are not the job creators. These are not people who have given the last 10 years. We have seen their incomes rise exponentially and their taxes go down.

So I don't think it is class warfare at all. It is just a talking point for Republicans. But since they have raised it, I would say this. I don't think it is class warfare to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay the same effective tax rate as their secretaries, but I think Republican policies are class warfare on the middle class. Look at their policies. They would end Medicare and put middle-class senior citizens in jeopardy. They want to privatize Social Security and put middle-class seniors in jeopardy. They want to cut one-third of the funds from transportation, which would mean 600,000 layoffs for middle- class workers.

They stopped us from helping small business by blocking Senator Landrieu's Small Business Innovation Act. They blocked the EDA--the Economic Development Act--which would have created 1 million jobs over 5 years. They have taken no action on the FAA bill. They have not appointed conferees, and we can't get that bill done that is hundreds of thousands of jobs.

When Republicans took control of the House, gross domestic product had grown at an average of 2.5 percent after the Recovery Act. Now it is down to 0.7 percent--from 2.5 percent of growth to 0.7 percent. The Republican Congress put the brakes on job creation, and that is a strong reason why this economy has slowed.

Even before they have read the fine print of President Obama's proposal, they say it is dead on arrival. So let us be clear: Again, asking millionaires and billionaires to pay the same as their secretaries is not class warfare, it is moral. Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, says it is the most patriotic thing we can do.

So instead of crying for millionaires and billionaires, I am thinking of sending a box of Kleenex tissues over there to Paul Ryan, who is lamenting this attack on millionaires and billionaires. Poor thing. Poor guys, poor gals. Instead of doing that, let's fight for the middle class around here. Let's get our arms around deficit reduction by asking everyone who can to pay their fair share.

By the way, let's give tax breaks to the middle class. Do you know these same Republicans who are crying their tears for the millionaires and billionaires say they do not want to give a tax break to working people? They are against the payroll tax proposal which would suspend that payroll tax for a period of time. I ask them to stop blocking bills that would create jobs. Stop blocking tax breaks for the middle class. Stop going after middle-class seniors. Stop crying for billionaires and help us pass elements of the Obama jobs plan which include bipartisan proposals all of us have supported in the past.

I think that is critical. We did this before with Bill Clinton--we created jobs, we strengthened the middle class, and we created surpluses by asking everyone to pay their fair share. Remember, when our President took over, this country was bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. I remember that--700,000 a month. We were on the verge of losing our automobile industry. This President took action. He doesn't get the credit for that, and that is OK. There will be time enough to spell it out. But all we have to do is look back to those days. Credit was frozen.

The Presiding Officer remembers that. Capitalism was coming to an end. This President acted. I have to say this: I don't want to go back to those days of bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. I don't want to go back to the days of credit freezes. I don't want to see these deficits continue. I want everyone to pay their fair share. Most of all, I want jobs for the American people.

So if we can stop crying tears for the people who have it all and we can roll up our sleeves and work together for the middle class, we will strengthen this Nation. We will solve our problems, just as we did when Bill Clinton was President. We have the roadmap. President Obama has taken steps to follow that roadmap. We know it works. We will get these deficits down, we will get the debt down, we will help the middle class and, yes, the wealthiest among us will pay the same tax rate effectively as their secretaries. You know what, if we do that, Democrats and Republicans can feel good about this country again. Let's work together and let's not say now that we can't ask billionaires to pay their fair share and let's not keep the middle class from getting their tax cuts and their jobs. That is what is important.

I wish to thank the leaders on this issue for letting me have the time to talk about this middle-class attack that we are seeing, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, yesterday, the President provided a fiscal plan on paper that he said reflects his latest fiscal vision for the country. It seems to be about the fourth vision we have had this year, and he has said we need to be honest with the American people and talk straight to them. I certainly believe that is correct, and I would share some thoughts about the President's plan and express disappointment that he has not been honest and direct with the American people, has not discussed in sufficient depth, in my opinion, the Nation's need to reduce spending because our debt is surging larger than it ever has in our history and presents a danger today and in the future.

The President needs to talk more about that. If we are going to ask the American people to reduce their spending, to take less from the government, to tighten belts, then we need to know why. I do believe he has not been sufficiently informative in his conversations because many of them emphasize increasing investments in various programs, in spending programs he has advocated, but with regard to the plan that was introduced yesterday he claims it would increase the fiscal year 2012 deficit by $300 billion; that is, next year it would increase the debt by $300 billion, but he says it would reduce deficits over the next 10 years, in the outyears, by $3.2 trillion.

We know what happens now happens. Spending that occurs today--the money is out the door--and promises to raise revenue in the future become less certain as each year passes by.

But assuming this is true, assuming we would actually do in the next 10 years the kind of things that would pay for this short-term spending, I would advise my colleagues that the fundamental claim the President is making--assuming his numbers are correct, and we do the things he suggests--it overstates by $1.8 trillion the amount of the savings. Mr. President, $3.2 trillion, no. Mr. President, $1.8 trillion reduced from that, and we are looking at about $1.4 trillion in savings and not $3.2 trillion. That is the fact. I will share with my colleagues the sad, grim fact of that.

How did it happen? Well, the bill, as the Washington Post said, is being criticized because of gimmicks that are in it.

First gimmick: The war-funding gimmick. The plan shows $1.1 trillion over 10 years in savings from putting a cap on war-spending costs. But those costs are going to decrease as the war effort unwinds whether or not this proposal is in place. They have been long been planned.

The President's proposed caps on war spending manipulate baseline concepts to show the savings that have been long planned and new-- something he came up with this week, I suppose--new choices which inflate the spending cuts in his plan. In other words, it inflates the amount of spending he has cut by $1.1 trillion.

The Congress has dealt with this little gimmick in the budgetary process. I serve as ranking member on the Budget Committee, and we wrestled with these baselines and scoring possibilities. But that gimmick--the $1.1 trillion gimmick--was rejected during the recent debt ceiling debate, raising the debt limit. We talked about that and we didn't do it because it is not an accurate explanation of the cutting of spending. We don't have any plan to continue to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan the $158 billion we spend this year. And for 10 years? Give me a break. That has never been our plan and shouldn't be assumed as a baseline for spending. Claiming credit for not continuing that is not a legitimate way to analyze how much you have cut spending.

Some have said Paul Ryan and the House Republicans, when they passed their budget, included the $1.1 trillion when they said they reduced spending by $6.2 trillion. They proposed a budget to cut $6.2 trillion. They also proposed a growth-oriented tax reduction and simplification plan that would create economic growth, netting out $4 trillion in actual savings. But Paul Ryan and his committee did not--I have checked the numbers--consider $1.1 trillion in war savings--which no one has disputed should occur--off the present amount we are spending. He did not include that in the $6.2 trillion. He did have an alternative analysis that showed that, and people have seized upon that to say his fundamental proposal of a $6.2 trillion spending reduction included it. It did not.

Another big gimmick--one used too often in this body--is what we call the doc fix of Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act, in the late 1990s, proposed substantial reductions in physician fees. As the years have gone by, it has become more and more plain that doctors cannot sustain a 20-percent reduction or more in their fees for doing Medicare work. So each year we put that money back in. But it is part of the plan of a long-term budget. The statute itself has not been changed. So every year we have this little problem: Are we going to cut the doctors 22 percent or are we going to avoid cutting the doctors 22 percent? Well, we don't want to cut the doctors that much. They can't function. That is too big a cut for them. So we find the money some way every year. Mostly, we have borrowed it.

The President's plan assumes that money will be found for the doc fix and they will do it over 10 years to the tune of $293 billion. This trick counts the higher spending as a given rather than as a policy choice that needs to be offset. Without this gimmick, the President's health care savings of $320 billion the plan suggests will occur becomes health care savings of only $27 billion. You don't save $293 billion because of this gimmick because it is unpaid for. There is no source of income to pay for the President's assumption. We will pay $293 billion, which means he only saves $27 billion in health care, not $320 billion.

I believe this is a truly honest and fair analysis of the President's proposal. It is incorrect, putting it kindly.

There is another little gimmick. When the President talks about cutting spending--when he says we are cutting spending--what does he include in that? He is counting as spending reductions the net interest effects of his proposed policy changes, even though interest costs are the secondary effect of his proposed tax hikes.

For example, if you raise taxes and don't cut spending--and spending has not been cut in this plan--you raise taxes and you reduce projected deficits, we think about $1.4 trillion under the plan, less than half of what was projected, then you don't pay as much interest because you don't accrue as much debt. And you don't pay as much interest on a debt that is not accrued. They are scoring that as if they cut spending, when it is a natural by-product of increased taxes.

So when you remove the accounting tricks and the Washington gimmicks

that have contributed to this country being in the fiscal condition we are in, you are left with only half of the $3 trillion in deficit reduction the White House promised.

The White House also claims the President's plan has $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes--$2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Indeed, early in the year he suggested we should have a plan that would have $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. But is this accurate? Is it true we are achieving $2 in spending cuts for $1 in tax hikes?

If you eliminate the gimmicks, you will see it is absolutely not true. Under the plan, total Federal spending--including the jobs plan's stimulus bill--the new stimulus bill--will increase. The President's plan will not decrease total Federal spending. It will increase, not decrease. There is no cut in spending. On balance, there is not a penny of net spending that is cut--on net.

In a speech, the President said:

I'm proposing real serious cuts in spending. When you

include the $1 trillion in cuts that I've already signed into

law, these would be among the biggest cuts in spending in our

history.

Well, that is not true. It is not accurate. I don't think it bodes well for us to be able to reach an agreement on these very serious issues if the President is pretending his plan cuts war costs or counts interest that shouldn't be counted or proposes we have a doc fix without any money with which to fix it. Those are the kinds of things that get us into trouble.

Despite the substantial increase in taxation under the President's plan, deficits would not be tamed. At no point over the next 10 years would deficits be smaller in nominal terms than the $459 billion recorded before he became President. That is the highest deficit in history. President Bush was roundly criticized for the $459 billion during his time. The lowest deficit under today's plan--the lowest over 10 years--would be $476 billion in the outyears, and it would start going back up again under the plan they propose, leading to a $565 billion deficit in 2021. And by the way, the last 3 years of deficits have been $1.3 trillion, $1.2 trillion, and this year will be $1.4 trillion in debt. So next year's deficit will actually surge beyond the current projections. We had hoped they would come down. But because of the new spending in this plan, $350 billion will be added to the deficit next year, putting us well over $1 trillion in deficit again next year. At a time when we should be reducing deficit spending, the immediate impact of the plan will be to increase spending, fostering more fear and uncertainty in our economy and the conclusion among the financial investors here and worldwide that we still haven't gotten the message and we are still out of control.

Over the next 10 years, deficits would total $6.4 trillion, and gross Federal debt would grow by $9.7 trillion. Gross Federal debt would grow by $9.7 trillion, exceeding $24 trillion in 2021, when last year we had about a $13 trillion debt. That would put our debt over 100 percent of

Mr. President, can I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute?

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate my colleague Senator Wyden on his work on this legislation, and also would thank him for his efforts to reach an agreement to improve our Tax Code. It is a big deal. A lot of expert witnesses have appeared before the Budget Committee. Senator Wyden is a member of the Budget Committee. Those witnesses have told us that properly improving our Tax Code could improve growth, create jobs, and make America stronger. I appreciate the Senator's hard work and am looking at his proposal and thank him for contributing positively to the debate.

I yield the floor.